Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Tramway Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Kilmarnock Water Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Legal and General Assurance Society Bill [Lords],

Newhaven and Seaford Water Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Melville Trust Order Confirmation Bill, Read the Third time, and passed.

STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BILL. (By Order.)

As amended, considered.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Several Amendments stand on the Order Paper in my name in reference to this Bill, Mr. Speaker, but if you will allow me, I
think we might dispense with them. While still protesting against the added burdens imposed on the people whom I represent, I have received the following telegram:
Waterworks Bill. Agreement reached with company. Please withdraw notice of Motion.—Sharpley, Town Clerk, Stoke-on-Trent.
After receiving that communication, and in view of the fact that there has been some arrangement made between the corporation, representing the people, and the water company, I beg leave to withdraw my opposition.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

PARENTS'-NEED PENSIONS.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, under the new scheme for the assessment of parents'-need pensions, the amount of need is divided among the late soldier or soldiers' surviving single daughters at home over 18 years of age who are not prevented from earning a living and surviving sons in proportional shares, greater shares being apportioned to single sons; whether in many cases, because of unemployment or war disablement, these sons are in fact unable to contribute to the maintenance of their parents, especially where they are disabled and have families to maintain: whether, in view of the widespread reduction of parents' pensions now taking place, he is aware that aged fathers and mothers are being exposed to great hardship; and whether immediate steps will be taken either to defer the application of this system or to replace it by a better.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Each case is, however, considered on its merits, and contributions may be,
and, in fact, are, waived where the circumstances are exceptional. In calculating the contributions to be imputed to the surviving children, no regard is had to possible periods of unemployment. On the other hand, I may remind my hon. Friend that this factor is ignored equally in assessing the share assumed and paid by the State as representing the amount which the deceased son would have contributed if he had lived.

Mr. GRAHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in existing conditions this scheme cannot work without very great hardship to aged parents and others, and would it not be desirable to make some modification of the position meanwhile, when obviously large numbers of sons and daughters are quite unable to contribute?

Mr. MACPHERSON: No. As I have said, every case is considered upon its individual merits.

PENSION STOPPED (MRS. A. CALLAGHAN).

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the pension awarded to Mrs. Annie Callaghan, of 29, Keyden Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow, on account of her son, First-class Stoker James Callaghan, K. 30.260, Royal Navy, has been stopped; whether he is aware that she is in extreme need and has received a notice from the factor regarding her arrears of rent; whether he is aware that Mrs. Callaghan has made several applications for the renewal of this pension; and whether he will take steps to meet the claims of this deserving case?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The circumstances of this case are at present being investigated. I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this case has now been under investigation for the last three months, that I have been in communication several times with his Office on this case, and that it is only because of the inattention of his Office that I put it down on the Order Paper, and will he do his best to expedite the decision, as it is a very extreme case?

APPEALS, YORK.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the appeal to the pensions appeal tribunal of Mrs. Thompson, of York, widow of the late W. J. Thompson, private, No. 121,894, Royal Army Medical Corps, was before the tribunal on 31st January last and was adjourned for further evidence, but has not yet been decided; that in the case of the appeal of Mrs. Harrod, of York, widow of the late Walter Harrod, private, No. 330,579, Cambridgeshire Regiment, to the same tribunal, the evidence in support of the appeal was furnished on 25th January last, but that up to the present the case has not been listed for hearing; and whether he can take steps to have the hearing and decisions in these cases accelerated?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand from the tribunal authorities that a decision in the case of Thompson has now been reached, and has been communicated to the appellant. As regards Mrs. Harrod, I am glad to say that it has been found possible, as a result of further inquiries, to admit entitlement to pension.

FORMS (INCORRECT PRINTING).

Mr. BETTERTON: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many forms M.P.A. 101 B, which state that, in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Warrant of 1919, the award notified in the communication accompanying the form is liable to readjustment in and after the year 1922, have been issued by the Ministry of Pensions; on whose authority and to whom these forms were issued; and what steps have been taken to correct the mis-statement contained therein, and to remove the anxiety created in the minds of pensioners?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that it is not possible to say how many of the incorrectly printed notices referred to were issued. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that all possible steps have been taken to correct the error, and I feel satisfied that pensioners are well aware that there can be no readjustment of rates before the 1st April, 1923.

HOSPITALS.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions how
many hospitals are now maintained by the Ministry, where they are situated, and how many cot cases there are in each?

Mr. MACPHERSON: There are 52 hospitals wholly maintained by my De-

Region.
Name of Hospital.
Number of Pensioners under treatment.
Where situated.


Scotland
…
Bellahouston
643
Glasgow.




Belmont Castle
31
Forfar.




Craigend Park
48
Edinburgh.




Craigleigh
467
Edinburgh.




Dalhousie
15
Carnoustie.




Edenhall
97
Musselburgh.




Kilgraston
34
Perth.




Kings Croft
10
Barnton.


Northern
…
Innes Hopkins
22
Ryton-on-Tyne.




Castle Leazes
455
Sunderland.




Shortley Bridge
202
Gateshead.




Gretna
98
Cumberland.




Sunderland
350
Sunderland.


North Western
…
Allerton Towers (Officers)
26
Liverpool.




Grangethorpe
174
Manchester.




Knotty Ash
480
Liverpool.




Mossley Hill
354
Liverpool.




Maghull
279
Liverpool.


Yorkshire
…
Beeketts Park
457
Leeds.




The Hydro
88
Bridlington.




Oulton Hall
113
Leeds.




Radlyn College
67
Harrogate.




Wharncliffe
156
Sheffield.


Wales
…
Bangor
73
Bangor.




Mount Pleasant
191
Chepstow.




Neath
174
Neath.




Rook wood
52
Llandaff.


West Midland
…
Highbury and Uffculme
245
Birmingham.




Cannock Chase
429
Hednesford, Staffs.




Oaklands
30
Droitwich.




Sorrento
38
Birmingham.




Watsons Home
25
Wylde Green, Birmingham.


East Midland
…
Frith Home
59
Leicester.




Harrowby Camp
212
Grantham.




Victoria Park
190
Leicester.


South Western
…
Ashton Court
113
Bristol.




Bath
449
Bath.


London
…
Holborn Red Cross
16
Roehampton.




Headington
151
Oxford.




Latchmere House (Officers)
52
Ham Common.




Lonsdale House
30
Clapham.




Ewell
337
Epsom.




Orpington
833
Kent.




Ruskin Park
303
Camberwell.




Rotherfield Court
38
Henley-on-Thames.




Shepherd's Bush
595
Shepherd's Bush.




The Spring, Hanwell (Nurses)
14
Hanwell.




Tooting
283
Tooting.




Welsh Hospital
161
Netley.


Ulster
…
Portush
42
Co. Antrim.


South Ireland
…
Leopardstown Park
61
Dublin.




Blackrock
467
Dublin.




TOTAL
10,329

partment at which approximately 10,000 officers, nurses, and men are at present receiving in-patient treatment. I am circulating particulars of these institutions in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:

ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY (PRIVATE R. J. BALDWIN).

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 8 and 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether R. J. Baldwin, late private, No. 13,472, Royal Field Artillery, was awarded a disability pension of 13s. 6d., including allowances for his wife and children, on 22nd December, 1920, to take effect from the 23rd February, 1921, and to end on 25th October, 1921; whether any and, if so, how much of this pension has been paid; whether he will take steps to see that any arrears are forwarded to this man as early as possible;
(2) whether he is aware that R. J. Baldwin, late private, No. 13,472, Royal Field Artillery, was awarded a service pension of 10d. per day for life in addition to his disability pension; whether the rate of pension where no disability pension is being paid is 2s. per day for the period served by this man; whether he is aware that this pension was to date from the 23rd March, 1919; that this pension has not been paid to him; and that this man is in extreme need; and whether he can state how soon this pension will be paid him along with the arrears to which he is entitled?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand that payment of both awards has been suspended because of a large overpayment improperly obtained. I am inquiring into the point regarding the rate of service pension.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that no intimation has been made to this soldier about any overpayment, that the papers sent to him contained no reference to that fact, and that he has been kept practically out of his pension for about a year?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows the facts of the case?

Mr. MACLEAN: I do. I have them by me.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I prefer not to discuss them in public, but if the hon. Member will come to see me privately I shall be pleased.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

KIDNAPPING (MR. HARRY FRANKS).

Colonel NEWMAN: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will
use the good offices of His Majesty's Government with the appropriate Department of the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland to endeavour to secure the release of Mr. Harry Franks, a British subject, lately domiciled at Mountrath, Queen's County, who was recently kidnapped by armed men?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): I am glad to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that Mr. Franks was released yesterday.

LOYALIST REFUGEE.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what he proposes to do for the help of an Irish loyalist, now a refugee in England, who has obtained a county court judgment for the value of his house, burned in October last, but cannot obtain payment of the sum awarded him, or of three half-years of rent now owing to him from his tenants?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member will give me details of the case to which he refers, I will gladly look into it to see what can be done. The information contained in the question is not sufficient to enable me to give the hon. Member an answer.

Sir C. OMAN: Will it suffice if I give the right hon. Gentleman details in confidence, the person who has supplied me not wishing his name to be published?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly.

FREE STATE ARMY.

Mr. GWYNNE: 13.
asked the Chief Secretary, in view of the fact that by the Act for the ratification of the Treaty the number of soldiers that can be raised by the Provisional Government is fixed in proportion to those employed by the Imperial Government, what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure that this provision shall be observed; whether he will state what is the number of men at present on the strength of the Free State Army; and if he can say what is the form of oath taken by such recruits?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Strictly speaking, this question cannot arise under the Treaty until the Free State has been established, but so far as the forces of
the Provisional Government are concerned, His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the intention of the Treaty has not been departed from.

Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last two parts of any question, as to the number of men at present on the strength of the Free State Army and what form of oath is taken by these recruits?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have said that I have no information in my possession as to the number of men at present on the strength of the Free State Army, and I do not know the form of oath taken by the recruits. I will endeavour to get this information, and as to the number of men at present on the strength of the Free State Army, I doubt very much whether it is in the public interest of the Provisional Government to make that statement of fact, even if it were in my possession.

Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he arrives at the conclusion that the Free State are keeping within the limits actually imposed with regard to the numbers if he does not know the numbers?

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not essential that the forces which are to be raised in Ireland should take some form of oath which would make them loyal to the King?

Colonel GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain what are the numbers of the Free State Army and inform the House when he has ascertained the numbers, and will he also say for what reasons those numbers should not be communicated to the House?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot promise to answer the question as my hon. and gallant Friend has put it, but I will see what answer I can give to the two last parts of the question put by the hon Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne) on another date.

Mr. GWYNNE: I will put the question down again for Monday.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman in the meantime consider if he can give the numbers of the other army in Ireland at the same time?

ARMED FORCES.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has any information as to the number of men under arms in Southern Ireland to-day, excluding the Imperial troops; and what is the number of the latter force in Southern Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second part, in the view of the military authorities it would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for.

KIDNAPPED BRITISH OFFICERS.

Viscount CURZON: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can as yet give any information regarding the kidnapping of three British officers and their driver at Macroom; whether His Majesty's Government consider that it is in the power of the Provisional Government to do any thing to ascertain the whereabouts of these officers; and whether any steps have been taken by the military forces in Ireland to deal with this case?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the statement made yesterday on the Motion for Adjournment by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

MALICIOUS INJURIES, NORTHERN IRELAND.

Mr. DEVLIN: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount that has been allocated for the payment of damages for malicious injuries in the area of Northern Ireland; and whether a Commission similar to that which has been appointed for Southern Ireland will be appointed to deal with this matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have been asked to answer this question. The Government of Northern Ireland have undertaken to deal with this matter, and the Imperial Government has agreed to contribute the sum of £1,500,000 towards the cost. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. A Commission is not necessary in Northern Ireland because the vast majority, if not all the cases were defended, and no question of reviewing decrees, therefore, arises.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of claimants for compensation for damage are greatly displeased with their awards, and as those awards are being reconsidered in Southern Ireland, is it not possible that they could be reconsidered in Northern Ireland by a Commission appointed upon the same lines as the Commission for Southern Ireland?

Mr. SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: Is it not a fact that the Commission is entirely for Southern Ireland, and not for Northern Ireland? Is it not a fact—that I think I can attest from my own personal knowledge—that claims in the Northern area have been contested by the County Councils and other bodies responsible, while in the Southern area they have not been contested by any bodies?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Now that both North and South have got Home Rule, how much longer is the British taxpayer to be asked to find money for both North and South?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is impossible, for me to state how long this House will be asked to assist the settlement of Ireland—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—by financial grants. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) it is quite true that most of the claimants in Ireland——

Mr. DEVLIN: Belfast we are talking about, not Ireland.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is quite true that most of the applicants in the Northern area may be dissatisfied with the awards granted by the County Court Judges, but in Northern Ireland every applicant has an open Court of Appeal to a judicial tribunal, and the decision is given in accordance to the law which cannot be disturbed by this House or any other tribunal.

Mr. DEVLIN: As I believe this grant of a million and a half to Northern Government to be an entirely scandalous transaction may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot give a date, but I am certain there will be some Estimate before long on which the whole matter can be raised.

Captain W. BENN: Is this sum included in the main Estimate for the year?

Sir M. DOCKRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. SPEAKER: Other questions had better be put down.

DEATH, ROSCOMMON (MRS. W. J. TALBOT).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 50 and 51.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if he is aware of the facts which led up to the death of Mrs. W. J. Talbot, of Mount Talbot, County Roscommon, on 9th or 10th April; if so, will he state these facts and say what action the Government have taken in connection with them;
(2) If he is aware of the facts as to the forcible ejectment from their holdings of a number of Protestants in the parish of Tinahoe, Queen's County, in the course of the last few days; and, if so, will he state these facts and say what action the Government have taken in connection with them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that I have not yet received from the Provisional Government the information for which I have asked regarding this matter and the matter referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's next question, and I am therefore again under the necessity of asking him to put both questions down again for a later date. As regards the hon. and gallant Member's second question, however, I would refer to the answer which I gave earlier to-day in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Kirk dale.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: As it appears to be quite futile to put down a question on a subject of this sort, I do not propose to put it down again.

LAND PURCHASE.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Irish Land Commissioners are demanding from Mr. W. S. M'Neill payment of instalments of money due from him in respect of his farm in County Leitrim purchased by him under the Land Purchase Act; is he aware that Mr. M'Neill was forcibly driven from his farm by the Sinn Fein forces in 1920 and is now a refugee in England; that the farm was afterwards
divided into lots and sold by auction; whether, under these circumstances, the Land Commissioners propose to press their claim; and what measures he proposes to take to enable Mr. M'Neill to assert his legal rights or, in default of this, to relieve him of his liability and compensate him for the money already paid by him to the Land Commission?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed that in 1920 Mr. W. S. McNeill informed the Land Commission that forcible possession of the farm had been taken by Sinn Feiners, and that the crops of all description had been destroyed, and that it was not possible to meet the amounts due. The case was subsequently brought under the notice of the Irish Government. There are at present due out of the holding three half-yearly instalments of annuity amounting in all to £10 12s. 2d. The Commissioners have been giving the payer every opportunity to pay, and up to this no extreme measures have been taken. The Commissioners are not aware that the farm, which is a small one, has been divided into lots and sold by auction as stated in the question.

Mr. GRITTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last part of my question?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Mr. McNeill has his legal rights under the Provisional Government of Ireland. If he is personally in distress he can apply to the Irish Distress Committee which has been set up and which undoubtedly would take bis claim into consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: As for over a year-and-a-half this gentleman was under the control of the right hon. Gentleman and he did not give him any protection, by what right is he asking him for the payment of this instalment when he has not given him protection for his farm? Surely he must give him the £10.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Land Commission have not taken any extreme measures to press for what is due, namely, £10 12s. 2d.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Will he tell the Land Commission not to ask for it at all? If this man cannot live on his farm owing to the neglect of the Government why should he pay?

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of temporary members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, recently disbanded, are in a destitute condition, as well as many ex-members of the auxiliary division, Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether, in view of the fact that owing to their not coming under the unemployment insurance scheme they are not eligible for unemployment benefit, he will endeavour to get Treasury sanction, by means of legislation or otherwise, to give a weekly grant to these men of a sum not less than they would have received if they had been insured in the unemployment scheme, more especially in view of the fact that, in addition to performing arduous and dangerous duties, they were thrown out of work unexpectedly owing to a change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that His Majesty's Government would not feel justified in present circumstances in extending to persons not otherwise eligible therefor the benefits of unemployment insurance.

Viscount CURZON: Is this the way in which the Government acknowledge their obligations of honour?

SOUTH PERSIA RIFLES (BRITISH OFFICERS).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering that the British officers engaged for service in the South Persia Rifles were offered and accepted a contract to serve for two years under the Persian Government, on the condition that if the contract should be broken through no fault of the officers they would be given six months' pay as compensation; that all Persian officers, and men of the South Persia Rifles were given two months' pay as compensation on disbandment; and that the British officers on disbandment were not only refused the six months' pay due to them under their contract to compensate them for expenses incurred, but have also been refused the two months' pay given to all the Persian officers and men, he will now
state what steps the Government are going to take to fulfil the pledge given to these British officers?

Earl WINTERTON (for Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The contracts of the officers mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member were never actually signed owing to the breakdown of the arrangement made with the previous Cabinet at Teheran, and there is, therefore, no ground upon which a claim could be pressed against the Persian Government. Further, the Treasury, having decided that gratuities could not be granted to regular members of the Government service for any period for which official pay from Government funds would be received, it was impossible to grant gratuities to these officers, of whom only a small minority held temporary commissions. These latter would in any case receive a gratuity on leaving the British service. I regret, therefore, that I do not see what further action in the matter it is possible to take.

Sir C. YATE: Do I understand from the Noble Lord that the contract under which these officers were engaged is to be broken by the Government without any compensation to the officers concerned?

Earl WINTERTON: That is not what I said at all. I said the contract had never been signed.

Sir C. YATE: It was signed by the Persian Government, and if that Government goes out and another Government succeeds, is that contract to be annulled?

Earl WINTERTON: I said it was not signed. I have already stated in my answer that the contract was never actually signed.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

GENERAL WRANGEL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the continual reports in the Continental Press of the activities of General Wrangel and his representatives in recruiting and drilling forces among the Russian refugees in Jugo-Slavia, Rumania and Bulgaria; whether any
confirmation of these reports have been received from His Majesty's representatives in the countries named; whether His Majesty's Government are still paying the cost of the upkeep of many of these Russian refugees in Jugo-Slavia; and whether he is satisfied that the money is not being misapplied in the manner described?

Earl WINTERTON: Reports of General Wrangel's activities have been brought to my attention, but they have not been confirmed by His Majesty's representatives. With regard to the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) on the 3rd instant. The remainder of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Noble Lord undertake that Hi?. Majesty's representatives are inquired of as to whether there is any truth in this, that these refugees, supported by our money, are being raised and drilled for some unknown purpose?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is the Noble Lord aware that these reports are sent out continuously from Moscow with the deliberate intention of trying to pick a quarrel with these border States?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that the Russians are raising huge armies of men and placing them on the Polish and Rumanian frontiers?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that arises so much out of this question as out of the next question on the Paper, but we have no confirmation of these reports which have appeared. With regard to the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), I said we were not supporting them.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Is the noble Lord aware that we have no further interest in these refugees at all, owing to the negotiations recently carried out, and that the League of Nations has taken over from the British Government the entire obligation with reference to them?

Earl WINTERTON: That is what I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we not paying the League of Nations moneys for the upkeep of these refugees, and is the Noble Lord aware that reports come from the Italian, Swiss and other papers and not from Moscow? There may be other reports from Moscow, but I am not aware of them.

Earl WINTERTON: I think the hon. and gallant Member should put that question down.

ARMIES (FRONTIER CONCENTRATION).

Sir CHARLES TOWNSHEND: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that a group of two Russian armies are now being concentrated on the Polish frontier and another group of two Russian armies are also in process of concentration on the Rumanian border, under a project of operations, it is said, from Russian headquarters at Moscow; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?

Earl WINTERTON: No official information is available respecting the reported Russian concentration on the Polish and Rumanian frontiers. There has been in increase in the number of formations in Western Russia since the beginning of the year, and the effective strength of these formations is believed to have been increased recently by the incorporation of the 1902 class.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: In view of that answer, will the Noble Lord say whether he has considered the importance of deciding to ascertain the truth of the report that Messrs. Krupps have established works in Russia?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the Noble Lord convey to the Prime Minister at Genoa that information in order that he may bring it to the notice of the Russian delegation as a distinct breach of paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (a), of the Cannes Resolutions?

Earl WINTERTON: In regard to the last question, I think the hon. and gallant Member had better address it to the Leader of the House. As to the question put by the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) the suggestion of my hon. Friend has already been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State.

ITALY AND AFGHANISTAN.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Giolitti Government, through its Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count Sforza, caused a secret treaty to be concluded between Italy and Afganistan last year; whether he can state the date of the conclusion of that treaty and its contents; whether and, if so, when it was disclosed to the British Government, and what action was taken in consequence of this disclosure; and what was the character of Anglo-Afghan relations at the time Count Sforza acted in this way?

Earl WINTERTON: Two agreements between the Italian Government and Afghanistan were signed on 3rd June last, providing for the exchange of diplomatic representation and for the negotiation of a commercial treaty. The Italian Government communicated the text of these agreements to His Majesty's Government on 14th July. There is nothing in the terms of either agreement which would appear to call for any action on the part of His Majesty's Government. At the time of the signature of these agreements negotiations were still in progress at Kabul for the Anglo-Afghan treaty.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: From that answer, does it not appear as though the agreements were adopted and actually arranged and signed, about a month before His Majesty's Government was informed?

Earl WINTERTON: I should deprecate most strongly answering questions concerning two foreign nations with both of which His Majesty's Government are on friendly terms.

CHINA (BRITISH TROOPS).

Mr. L. MALONE: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any British troops have been engaged in the fighting for Pekin; and, if so, on whose side they were fighting?

Earl WINTERTON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part of the question therefore does not arise.

EGYPT (ZAGHLOUL PASHA).

Mr. SWAN: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
he is aware that the Mahommedan population of Egypt have this year abandoned the festal ceremony of the beginning of Ramadan as a protest against Zaghloul Pasha's exile, and that the Coptic population also abandoned for the same reason the feast of Easter; and whether His Majesty's Government has taken these facts into consideration in regard to the policy of returning Zaghloul Pasha to his home?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no information regarding the alleged action of the Mahommedan population of Egypt, nor, as I have already informed the hon. Member on 3rd May, regarding that of the Coptic population. The last part of the question does not therefore arise.

SUDAN.

Mr. SWAN: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British authorities in the Sudan lately have been busy in inducing the Sudanese to sign declarations to the effect that they wish the Sudan to be separated from Egypt; whether a Sudanese delegation will be sent to London for the purpose of putting these declarations before the authorities here; and whether Lord Allenby, on his recent visit, took the opportunity of ascertaining what was the Sudanese attitude on this question?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have no information as to the prospect of a Sudanese delegation coming to London and am unable to reply to the last part of the question, since Lord Allenby's report on his recent tour in the Sudan has not yet been received.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the status of the Sudan has not been changed in the last 12 months?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise here.

Mr. SWAN: Is the Noble Lord aware that many of the Sudanese have recently declared a desire to be represented in the Egyptian Parliament, and to be elected there, and there are still protests being made by the inhabitants of the Province
of Khartoum against separation on the ground that Egypt and the Sudan are indivisible?

Earl WINTERTON: My information is to the directly opposite effect, and I regret the hon. Gentleman should make himself the channel for an allegation which is without any foundation whatever.

Mr. SWAN: Will the Noble Lord say if he has any information—if he has really any knowledge—of what I am stating as a fact? I am not a medium of communicating allegations.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it in order for an occupant of the Treasury Bench, or any other hon. Member or Noble Lord, to make an insinuation against another hon. Member, as to being used as a channel for information?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is the business of hon. Members to be sure of the foundations of their questions before putting them on the Paper, but I am afraid hon. Members do not always do so.

Mr. SWAN: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that the Sudan comes within the suggested Treaty?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask again whether there has been any change in status as between the Sudan and Egypt during the last 12 months?

Earl WINTERTON: I should require notice of that, but to the best of my belief there has been no such alteration.

REVOLUTIONARIES (POLICE ACTION).

Sir C. YATE: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are known to be working for revolution in this country; how many of these have been arrested, convicted, or deported since November last; and what steps are to be taken with those still at large?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): It is undesirable that I should indicate the figures referred to in the first part of the question, but a number of persons of revolutionary tendencies have, during the last six months, been convicted or bound
over to keep the peace in connection with disturbances or incitements to violence, and I am sure that the proper authorities are alive to the necessity of watching such persons and dealing with infractions of the law.

Sir C. YATE: Who are the proper authorities?

Mr. SHORTT: The police authorities.

WASHINGTON TREATIES.

Mr. MALONE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to bring before this House the legislation necessary to ratify the treaties concluded at Washington, namely, the treaty for the limitation of armaments of 6th February, 1922, the treaty for the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants in time of war, etc., of 6th February, 1922, the Quadruple Pacific treaty of 13th December, 1921, the Nine-Power treaty, and the Chinese customs tariff treaty, as provided for in Articles XXIV, VI, IV, IX, and X of these treaties, respectively; whether separate Bills will be introduced for each treaty; whether Japan and the United States of America have already ratified these treaties; and what is the reason for the delay of His Majesty's Government in ratifying these treaties?

Earl WINTEBTON: Legislation will be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to certain of the provisions of the Treaty for the limitation of naval armament, and the Treaty for the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants. A Bill will be introduced as soon as the state of business permits. The other Treaties do not involve legislation. The United States Senate has advised the ratification of the Treaties, but ratifications have not yet been deposited by any of the signatory Powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENOA CONFERENCE.

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

Viscount CURZON: 29.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the widespread anxiety throughout the country that harm is being done to Anglo-French relations by the publication of inaccurate reports of the recent conversation between
the Prime Minister and M. Barthou, the exact text of the conversation can be published?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Home): I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend said in reply to questions on this subject yesterday and the day before.

Captain W. BENN: Has the Prime Minister intimated his willingness that the Minutes of the conversation should be published, and, if so, will they be published?

Sir R. HORNE: That does not arise out of this question.

RUSSIA (LOAN).

Colonel NEWMAN: 30.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has been able to transmit to the British delegation at Genoa the fact that the people of this country are opposed to the grant of a money subsidy, cither by way of a direct loan or under the guise of a State-subsidised trade facilities agreement, to the Communist Government of Russia; and is he able to say that the Russian Government has already been made aware of this fact by the British delegation?

Sir R. HORNE: His Majesty's Government have made it perfectly clear that they are not prepared to make a loan to the Soviet Government. The character of the proposals, which they are prepared to make to Parliament, will be seen by reference to the Memorandum sent to the Russian representatives at Genoa on 3rd May. This document has been laid, and copies will, I hope, be available in the Vote Office to-morrow.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: With reference to the Prime Minister's recent speech at Genoa, in which he stated he was going down with the sinking ship, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that ship was the Coalition or European peace?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not know of any such statement.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that not only is no direct loan to be made to the Soviet Government, but that we shall not do it in any indirect form, such as by granting a credit.

Sir R. HORNE: That is a question which requires a definition.

CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.

Commander BELLAIRS: 31.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can assure the House that any proposal which may be submitted to the free vote of the House for the admission of Canadian store cattle, and the amendment of the Diseases of Animals Act of 1896, will be strictly confined to Canadian cattle coming direct by sea from Canada, and will not be applied to Canadian cattle sent through the ports of the United States of America?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have been asked to reply. I understand that the Motion which it is desired to move is that the embargo on the importation of Canadian cattle should be removed. It would be for Mr. Speaker to decide what, if any, limitations this Motion places on the terms of the discussion, and what Amendments would be in order.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or some other person concerned, the precise extent of the effect on British agriculture?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: We must take the Motion as it stands on the Paper, and any Amendments or limitations will be the subject for discussion at the time.

Mr. STURROCK: Is it not the case that Canada can send all the Canadian cattle she wishes to send to this country through her own ports, and further, in view of the sensitive state of opinion on this matter in Canada, will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain to the British House of Commons as to there being no doubt about Canada being able to deal with this traffic without having recourse to American ports?

Captain ELLIOT: Before answering that——

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members have had several shots at this Motion.

An HON. MEMBER: We have only wounded it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

STUDENT TEACHERS (INCOME TAX).

Mr. J. DAVISON: 33.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Income Tax payers whose
children are attending elementary schools, whole time, as student teachers-are being denied the abatement, on the ground that the children are apprentices, although the parents of children who are attending secondary schools and universities for the purpose of training for after life enjoy the abatement; and whether he will give instructions to secure similarity of treatment in these cases?

Sir R. HORNE: The question whether the Income Tax deduction to which the hon. Member refers is admissible in a given case is primarily one for the determination of the Income Tax Commissioners concerned. I would point out, however, that the deductions granted under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1920, for a child over sixteen years of age are subject to the condition that the child is receiving "full time instruction at any university, college, school or other educational establishment," and that this condition would not appear to be satisfied in the case of a pupil or student teacher who is teaching in a council school.

Mr. DAVISON: What is the reason for this distinction in the two classes enumerated in the question?

Sir R. HORNE: I can only state the law as it at present stands.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is it not a fact that young persons acting as student teachers are receiving education?

Sir R. HORNE: That may or may not be.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (GRANTS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the substantive grants to local education authorities for the current year for elementary schools will be paid on exactly the same basis as last year, namely, under the formula which provides that the amount shall be calculated at 36s. for each unit of average attendance, plus three-fifths of teachers' approved salaries, plus one-half of net approved expenditure on special services (special schools, medical inspection, provision of meals), plus one-fifth of all other net approved expenditure (loan charges, administration, school maintenance and management), less the produce of a rate of 7d. in the £, subject to the amount of
expenditure on special services, administration, and other similar purposes being kept within the limits specified in Command Paper 1638.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 9th May, and to the recently issued draft Regulations for Substantive Grant for Elementary Education for the year 1922–23.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to which he refers does not give the information for which this question asks, and could he tell local education authorities on what basis the variation in the formula will be made in cases in which the expenditure exceeds the amount specified in the White Paper?

Mr. FISHER: I referred the hon. Member not only to the answer which I gave him on the 9th May but also to the Regulations on the subject of grants. I do not know whether he has referred to the Regulations.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those Regulations do not show how the variation will be made if this expenditure is exceeded?

Mr. FISHER: I hope to be able to give information to the local authorities as soon as the particulars are in my possession.

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DENBIGHSHIRE.

Mr. FOOT: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Denbighshire Education Committee granting permission to the director of education for the county to promote his parliamentary candidature for the West Denbigh Division, and allowing him to retain his appointment for 12 months from the date on which he may take up his parliamentary duties; and whether these arrangements have the approval of the Board of Education?

Mr. FISHER: My attention has been called to a statement in the Press, from which it appears that the permission is conditional upon the provision by the director of a full-time substitute to be
approved by the Education Committee. In the circumstances, there does not at present appear to be any ground for action on my part; but the Board would, of course, not recognise, for the calculation of grant, expenditure on the salary of an official the duties of whose office are not performed.

Mr. FOOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was an undertaking also that, in the event of his being returned, there would be no active work on his part in relation to education at all—that he would retire definitely from the active work of education in that county?

Mr. FISHER: I am not aware of that.

Mr. HOGGE: Would this establish a precedent for all permanent officials in Government offices who take up political candidatures and appoint full-time substitutes while they are doing so?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why should it not be? Would it not be rather a good precedent?

ACCOUNTS.

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the executive of the Association of Education Committees and also the County Councils' Association both consider that the Education Accounts (Annual Statement) Order, 1921, should be withdrawn; and, if so, why does the Board oppose these bodies, which will have to bear the cost of the preparation of the Return as required by the Order?

Mr. FISHER: I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy of an answer which I gave on the 1st May, 1922, to the hon. and gallant Member for the Moss Side Division of Manchester (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst). I have nothing to add to that answer.

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the form requires the receipts submitted on this form to be under 67 different headings, and the expenses under 210 different headings, and will he, bearing in mind the additional clerks that are rendered necessary and the opposition of the local authorities, do away with this unnecessary expenditure?

Mr. FISHER: The object of the revised form was to secure greater economy, and I have no doubt that it will enable very much greater economy to be secured than is now possible. It is true that the local education committees will have to employ a few more clerks, but when the new form is once established I think that the expenditure will be reduced to a minimum, and that a very large economy will result.

INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS, WALES.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been directed to the serious financial injustice to the Principality of Wales involved in the proposals of Circular 1259 issued by the Welsh Department, seeing that the county schools of Wales established under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act are regarded as aided schools, and are in the same category as schools under private management, but receiving financial assistance from local authorities, while other secondary schools established under a later Act are classified as provided schools, and therefore do not come under the terms of the circular; and whether, seeing that education authorities have adopted their Estimate for the year previous to the issue of the circular of 2nd May, he will consider the advisability of postponing the operation of the circular pending a discussion of its provisions with educational authorities in Wales?

Mr. FISHER: The decision in this matter was made by the Government after considering a recommendation of the Committee on National Expenditure, and it applies to England equally with Wales. I do not think that any injustice is done to the Welsh intermediate schools, in view of the fact that the Government's decision is to assimilate the position of the aided schools as regards grant to that of the provided schools. I cannot hold out any hope that the Government will postpone the operation of their decision.

Mr. JONES: 59.
further asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received any representations from local authorities in Wales relative to Circular 1,259 issued by the Welsh Department of the Board of Education;
whether he is aware that this circular will have the effect of crippling the work of Welsh intermediate schools; that these schools have for years suffered greatly from lack of funds; and that the Board's inspectors have in recent reports called attention to the strain placed on the present staff in certain intermediate schools in Wales and have made recommendations, the adoption of which would necessitate increased staffing?

Mr. FISHER: I have received representations from one Local Authority in Wales concerning Circular 1,259. I see no reason to think that the decision of the Government which the circular announces will have the effect of crippling the work of the intermediate schools. The Board's inspectors have occasionally drawn attention to cases of under-staffing in Welsh intermediate schools, duo to an increase in the number of pupils, and the Board have asked that the staff should be strengthened. Such cases occur in England also, and I have no reason to suppose that relatively they are more numerous in Wales.

SPIRITS DUTY (PERFUMERY).

Mr. LYLE: 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the present duty of 74s. per proof gallon on perfumery is crippling the industry; whether he will consider the question of separating the perfumery trade from the potable spirits industry and a lower and different duty for the trade; and, if this is not possible, whether he can see his way to amend the existing law to permit of perfumery being manufactured in bond for home trade, and to enable manufacturers to mature the spirit in bond and so release capital?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that representations have been made in the sense mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I am unable to adopt either of his suggestions.

CLUBS (TAXATION).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet given effect to the undertaking given by him in the Budget Debate on 18th July
last and considered what relief can be given in the matter of that part of the Club Tax which is a tax upon a tax?

Sir R. HORNE: This question has received my careful consideration. It will no doubt be the subject of discussion on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and I am unable to anticipate that Debate.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in view of the great dissatisfaction caused by his inability to reduce the Beer Duty it would be extremely satisfactory if he could seriously modify this Club Tax?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not likely to be allowed to forget it.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: In view of the financial position of many of the clubs will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of meeting this demand?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can put that point in Committee on the Finance Bill.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount received in respect of the Club Tax for the year ending 31st March last?

Sir R. HORNE: Exact figures for the year ending 31st March, 1922, are not yet available, but approximately the amount received in respect of the Club Tax during that period was £379,000.

ON-AND OFF-LICENCES.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number of on-and off-licences issued for the sale of intoxicating liquors for the year ending 31st March last, and the total amount received on account of such licences?

Sir R. HORNE: Exact figures for the year ending 31st March, 1922, are not yet available, but the figures are approximately as follows:—Total number of "on" and "off" licences issued for the sale of intoxicating liquor (including
"dealers" licences), 169,150. Total amount of licence duty, £3,841,750.

SILVER COINAGE.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to revert to the pre-War purity of silver coinage; and what profit the Treasury anticipate during the current financial year from the issue of silver coins manufactured from the alloy at present in use?

Sir R. HORNE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the second part is that the estimated Mint Exchequer receipts in 1922–23 are £1,180,800. It is not possible to give a separate figure for silver coin.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does not the saving of a million or more on this debased coinage destroy any claim we may have to be an artistic people?

Sir R. HORNE: That may or may not be.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount received each year from the Entertainments Duty since it was first imposed, and any variations in the rate levied each year?

Sir R. HORNE: As the information is in tabular form, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

The receipts of Entertainments Duty from the 15th May, 1916, when the duty was first imposed, are:

Year ended 31st March,





£


1917
…
…
3,001,268


1918
…
…
4,987,568


1919
…
…
7,520,080


1920
…
…
10,479,516


1921
…
…
11,735,840


1922
…
…
10,285,000 (approximate)

The variations made from time to time in the rates of duty are shown below.

RATES OF ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.


Price of Admission exclusive of Duty.
From 15 May, 1916.
From 1 Oct., 1917.
From 1 Aug., 1918.
From 1 Oct., 1919.




Tax.
Tax.
Tax.
Tax.


2d. and under
…
½d.
½d.
—
—


2½d and under
…
—
—
½d.
½d.


Over 2d. to 6d.
…
1d.
—
—
—


Over 2d. to 4d.
…
1d.
1d.
—
—


Over 2½d. to 4d.
…
1d.
1d.
1d.
1d.


Over 4d. to 6d.
…
1d.
2d.
2d.
—


Over 4d. to 4½d.
…
1d.
2d.
2d.
1½d.


Over 4d. to 7d.
…
—
—
2d.
—


Over 4½d, to 7d.
…
—
—
2d.
2d.


Over 6d. to 2s. 6d.
…
2d.
—
—
—


Over 6d. to 1s.
…
2d.
3d.
—
—


Over 7d. to 1s
…
2d.
3d.
3d.
3d.


Over 1s. to 2s.
…
2d.
4d.
4d.
4d.


Over 2s. to 3s.
…
—
6d.
6d.
6d.


Over 2s. 6d. to 5s.
…
3d.
—
—
—


Over, 3s. to 5s.
…
3d.
9d.
9d.
9d.


Over 5s. to 7s. 6d.
…
6d.
1s.
1s.
1s.


Over 7s. 6d. to 12s. 6d.
…
1s.
—
—
—


Over 7s. 6d. to 10s. 6d.
…
1s.
1s. 6d.
1s. 6d.
1s. 6d.


Over 10s. 6d. to 15s.
…
—
2s.
2s.
2s.


Over 12s. 6d
…
1s. first 12s. 6d. 1s. each additional 10s. or part.
—
—
—


Over 15s.
…
—
2s. first 15s., 6d. each additional 5s. or part.
As 1917
As 1917

REVENUE (MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the details of the miscellaneous ordinary receipts, amounting to £22,000,000, estimated to be received in the year to 31s March, 1923; and what are the actual comparative figures for the year to 31st March, 1922?

Sir R. HORNE: The main items are Currency Note Reserve Account Surplus, £16,000,000; Fee and Patent Stamps, £1,100,000; Mint Receipts, £1,180,800. The receipts for 1921–22 amounted to £26,334,000, and details will be given in the Annual Finance Accounts in due course.

Mr. DAVIES: 41.
also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the loans and interest comprising the amount of £14,000,000 estimated to be received as interest on sundry loans for the year to 31st March, 1923, and the actual comparative figures for the year to 31st March, 1922?

Sir R. HORNE: The main items are Suez Canal Receipts and Interest Pay—ments on Relief Loans and from the Dominions on War Loans. The total receipts in 1921–22 were £13,807,500, full details of which will be given in due course in the Annual Finance Accounts.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum in sterling paid by Germany since the Armistice to date as reparations to the British Empire and I the Allies in cash and kind, and including moneys paid for the Armies of I Occupation?

Sir R. HORNE: According to the statement published by the Reparation Commission in March last the German I payments in cash, deliveries in kind and cessions of State property from the date of the Armistice to 31st December, 1921 (including moneys paid for the Armies of Occupation, the re-imbursement of ad-
vances under the Spa Coal Deliveries Agreement and Reparation) are estimated to amount to the total of 6,487,856,000 gold marks. Excluding cessions of State property the total amounts to 3,983,514,000 gold marks. No later figures are available.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman talk of sterling as requested to do in the question?

Sir R. HORNE: It is always difficult to give these matters in sterling: in point of fact it is much more convenient to give the actual payments made in gold marks.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what portion of this, sum paid and to be paid by Germany to the British Empire is to be allocated as compensation to those who suffered in this country from enemy action?

Sir R. HORNE: That is a totally different question: this is upon Reparation Account. The question the hon. Gentleman raises—as I think he very well knows—is dealt with from our own finances, not from what is paid by Germany.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: What is the value in sterling?

Sir R. H0RNE: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to do so, he can roughly estimate 20 gold marks to the pound sterling. I do not profess that in the circumstances that would be entirely accurate, but it is as nearly as I can give it.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: In view of the fact that the vast majority of Members of the House of Commons are pledged to search the pockets of the Germans, may I ask, with a view to lightening taxation in these difficult times, that the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that this matter will not be regarded in the nature of a windfall, but that definite reparation will be exacted?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not think it very much matters whether you regard it as a windfall or not, but whether it benefits the people when you get it.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
whether he is aware that, in case 110391/1921, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are imposing the reparation levy on goods of German origin shipped from Amsterdam by a Dutch firm unless the consignees can submit proof of when each article was ordered by the Dutch firm from Germany, the date it was ordered by the British purchasers from the Dutch company, when and how it was delivered by the German manufacturer to the Dutch company, and how and when it was delivered by the Dutch company to the British purchasers; that a Dutch company would allow no deduction to be made from their invoice cost to meet the reparation levy; that, if they did allow this, they could not recover it from the German Government; and that the payment becomes a British tax and not a reparation levy; and whether, in view of the restraint on trade between Holland and Great Britain which such an imposition must obviously cause, he will give instructions that goods shipped by a registered Dutch firm, whose business is certified as a genuine one by a British Consul, shall not be subject to the reparation levy?

Mr. YOUNG: All German goods are liable to reparation levy on importation into this country, unless they are shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise not to have been first consigned from Germany to the United Kingdom. In the case referred to the goods were two German pianos, and evidence of the nature indicated in the question has been called for to justify the importers' claim that the goods were not in fact first consigned from Germany to the United Kingdom. The proposal contained in the concluding part of the question would not meet the requirements of the Act, and I am unable to adopt it.

Mr. KILEY: Is it not a fact that, if these goods come direct from Belgium or France, no reparation duty whatever is collected?

Mr. YOUNG: No, I imagine that that is not so, though I could not be sure in every possible case.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. RENDALL: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the result of the Budget pro-
posal to tax salaried persons on their estimated incomes is to make many of them pay on their highest year's income, whilst the rest of the community, in preferring their three years' average income, get the advantage of past lean years; and whether, seeing that an employé earning £145 in 1919, £250 in 1920, and £400 in 1921, under the existing law would pay £15 11s. 3d. tax, whilst if his salary has now been increased to £500 a year he will, under the new proposal, be compelled to pay, even at the reduced rate of tax, £50 12s. 6d., he will reconsider this proposal?

Sir R. HORNE: There has hitherto been a serious want of uniformity in the treatment of various classes of employés—some being assessed on the three years' average and others upon the emoluments of the year. The effect of the proposal to which my hon. Friend refers is to remove this anomaly and to provide one common basis of assessment for all employés, namely, the amount of the emoluments of the year of assessment. I would remind my hon. Friend that emoluments generally are now falling, so that the class of employés as a whole will gain by the change; it is only in a minority of the cases that there will be an increased charge of tax, and even in these cases it must be remembered that in past years the persons concerned have almost always paid tax on less than their actual earnings under the three years' average method of assessment, while other employés have been assessed annually on their earnings of the year.

Mr. RAFFAN: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received representations as to the position of unmarried sons who are the sole support of homes and maintain their fathers or mothers, and therefore consider that they are entitled to the same abatement of Income Tax as is given to married men in respect of their wives; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Sir R. HORNE: An Income Tax allowance is already granted under existing law to an unmarried son who is the sole support of an incapacitated father or widowed mother. I see no sufficient ground, however, why that
allowance should be assimilated in amount to that granted to the married man.

GRAMPIAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.

Mr. BRIGGS: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the promoters of the Grampian Electric Supply Bill have received a letter, dated 20th April, 1922, from the Secretary of the Trade Facilities Act Committee stating that, subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, the Committee would be prepared to recommend a guarantee of both capital and interest of the debenture issue of the company equal in amount to the ordinary share capital of the company; and is he satisfied that the commercial future of this company warrants the use of public money to guarantee capital and interest to such a proportion of debenture issue?

Sir R. HORNE: As I stated during the passage of the Trade Facilities Act, I propose to be guided in the guarantees given under that Act solely by the advice of the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee which consists of three business men of very great experience and ability. I understand the Committee are prepared to recommend a guarantee in this case provided the scheme matures in time.

Mr. BRIGGS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the intention of the promoters of this Bill, if they obtain the State guarantee, to refer to it on their prospectus, and does he not think that that would only lead the public into the same position that they have got into in similar cases?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of any such intention. As the House very well knows, we committed the discussion of the applications which were put forward in order to relieve unemployment to a skilled Committee, and designedly remitted entirely to it to deal with such applications as were made. It would be a very unfortunate thing if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be "Lobbied" in connection with any scheme which might be put forward. Therefore it was right that I should trust to the judgment of men of skill and experience, and I have the greatest confidence in their judgment. As to what my hon. Friend says about the prospectus, of course I know nothing.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it expected by the Government that the Trade Facilities Committee will not only make grants, but that these grants will be used as an influence in a prospectus inviting investments in a venture which, however desirable it may be, after all is very speculative and does not cover the real nature of the venture as far as the public are concerned?

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend is quite in error. The Committee is not entitled to make any grants whatever. The only principle they can act upon is by way of a guarantee which, as my hon. Friend knows, is a totally different thing. As to the use which may be made of a prospectus, I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not reasonable to suppose that these highly-skilled gentlemen who are looking after this matter are quite well aware that misuse can be made of these facilities, and have taken that fact into consideration before granting them?

Sir R. HORNE: I should think that is very likely, but I do not know of my own knowledge.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is open to hon. Members to make their own representations to the Committee.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (POST OFFICE CHARGES).

Mr. KILEY: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that on some post parcels of artificial flowers imported for the use of a manufacturing millinery firm engaged in the export trade, a key industries duty of 3s. 1d. was levied for the reason that some of the articles consisted of blown glassware; and that the Post Office charged 15s. on the consignment for the opening and re-packing of the goods in question; and whether, in view of similar transactions now occurring, he will consider the advisability of amending the Safeguarding of Industries Act so as to permit such small consignments of raw materials for re-manufacturing purposes being admitted free of duty, especially such petty transactions as the one referred to above?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): My attention has not been drawn to the case referred to in the first part of the question, but I am informed that the Post Office charge for the opening and re-packing of any individual parcel is 6d. With regard to the third part of the question, I would refer to the reply given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) on the 13th February last.

Mr. KILEY: Could the hon. Baronet say what action the Board of Trade are taking to protect traders against having to pay a charge of 15s. for the collection of 3s. 1d. of duty?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not think that that bears on the question. As I have said, the Post Office charge is 6d. per parcel, and if there was a charge of 15s. it would appear that there were a good many parcels.

Mr. KILEY: Is it not the duty of the Board of Trade to assist in protecting the trader against an imposition of this kind?

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

PATENT OFFICE.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of permanent civil servants promoted in the Patent Office since the end of the War; how many of the men promoted were ex-service men and how many non-service men; in how many cases were non-service men promoted over the heads of senior ex-service men; and whether he can assure the House that in all the promotions made regard was had to the Government's pledge that civil servants should not be prejudiced by service with the colours?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The number of permanent civil servants promoted in the Patent Office since the Armistice is 79. Of these, 60 were non-service men, including 25 over military age, and 19 were ex-service men. In 16 cases non-service men were promoted over the heads of ex-service men, and in nearly all cases the ex-service men were promoted over the heads of non-service men. The substantial number of promotions is due to the fact that promotions in the Patent Office
were suspended during hostilties in order that the claims of ex-service men and men who had served in other Departments during hostilties might receive adequate consideration. I am able to give the assurance referred to in the last part of the question.

FORESTRY INSTRUCTORS.

Sir C. OMAN: 76.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what steps are being taken to find for demobilised officers, lately acting as instructors under the Forestry Commission, and now under notice of dismissal despite of acknowledged good service, employment in some analogous occupation in other parts of the British Empire; and to whom such officers should make application for such employment?

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER (for the Forestry Commissioners): Particulars of service and qualifications of instructors under the Forestry Commission who became redundant in consequence of reduction of expenditure have been submitted to the Treasury with a view to that Department recommending them to the Colonial Office and in other quarters for employment in some analogous occupation in other parts of the British Empire. The Colonial Office has been supplied with particulars of these cases, but it is open to the officers to make direct application for employment to that Department or elsewhere.

PRE-WAR DEBTS, GERMANY.

Sir HENRY COWAN: 67.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the dilatory methods of the German Government in dealing with British pre-War debts; whether representations made by the Controller of the Clearing Office to the German authorities have, in many cases, failed to secure a settlement; whether the alternative procedure of bringing cases before the mixed arbitral tribunal involves considerable expense; and whether, in view of the hardships imposed upon British traders who urgently require the moneys withheld by the German Government, steps will be taken to expedite the ad-
mission and settlement of such claims by bringing pressure to bear upon the German Government.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Constant pressure is being brought to bear on the German authorities to expedite the admission of outstanding claims in respect of pre-War debts. Where, notwithstanding this pressure, there is undue delay, claimants are recommended to refer their claims to the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. In ordinary cases the expenses of proceedings before the tribunal should be inconsiderable, having regard to the fact that no fees are payable to the tribunal, which also has power to award a sum to the successful party in respect of expenses.

Sir H. COWAN: Is the hon. Baronet aware that persons who are unable to recover these debts by the ordinary procedure are deterred from making claims though the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal because of their belief that the charges are excessive and, in the case of small claims, out of proportion to the amount recovered?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I hope no one will be deterred by that consideration. As I have indicated in my answer, it is exactly contrary to the fact to say that the charges made by the tribunal are prohibitive.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING WORKS.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the Report of the Geddes Committee that printing and similar enterprises by Government Departments cannot be as economical as if undertaken by public tender, he will take steps to review the arrangements for carrying on the Government printing works with a view to bringing this Government trading department to an end as speedily as possible?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The statement contained in the first part of the question is not a correct rendering of the passage in the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure, which runs:
We cannot think that as a general rule such enterprise by Government Departments
can be as economical as public tender, but such considerations as temporary rings in the market and other abnormal circumstances may otherwise justify a departure from principle. At the end of the three years' trial the matter can be reviewed.
The Government printing works are being maintained for an experimental period of three years, from June, 1920, and before the end of that period the question will be reviewed.

Mr. GRITTEN: Has the hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the Report of the Publications and Debates Committee on this very subject?

Mr. YOUNG: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Departmental Committee which was set up last year to inquire into the matter has reported, or whether it has ever sat?

Mr. YOUNG: I should require notice of that question.

FOREIGN TRADE (STATISTICS).

Sir W. HOWELL DAVIES: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if various trade associations obtain from the authorities at the Custom House unpublished particulars relating to foreign trade; on what basis the charge made for the information supplied is computed; and if, in spite of the reduction in the civil servants' bonus, no reduction has yet been made in that charge?

Mr. YOUNG: I have been asked to reply. Information of general interest is published in the statistics of trade, but trade associations and other parties requiring more detailed information of sectional interest are required to pay for it through the Customs Bill of Entry. The fee charged covers the cost of preparation at a flat rate per hour of the time occupied, and it is not yet possible to reduce it.

LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND).

Sir J. D. REES: 68.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Departmental Committee on Deer Forests has reported that the land settlement policy of the Government has shown that even the less barren parts of the Highlands can only be repeopled at heavy cost to the taxpayer, while increase in local assessments has made Highland ratepayers
reluctant to see any rateable subjects destroyed; and whether, in view of these overriding general findings, any action will be taken upon the recommendations made by the Committee?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. D. Murray): My right hon. Friend is aware of the statements to which my hon. Friend refers, and which occur in the letter introductory to the Report. The considerations in question were evidently present to the minds of the Committee when formulating their recommendations, and they are not, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, to be taken as overriding, or as qualifying, the recommendations of the Report.

Sir J. D. REES: Is it then to be understood that the preamble of this Report is as meaningless as that of the Parliament Act?

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 74.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is a large number of persons, mainly ex-service men, who purchased houses three or four years ago intending to reside in them, but are debarred by the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts; and whether he is prepared to bring in an amending Bill to enable such persons who bona fide wish to occupy their houses to do so?

Mr. PARKER (for Sir Alfred Mond): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. As he has previously informed my hon. and gallant Friend, the Increase of Rent Act, 1920, contains special provisions in favour of ex-service landlords, and he would refer him particularly to Section 5. He is afraid he cannot undertake to introduce fresh legislation as suggested.

Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the question does not say "to occupy part of their houses," but "to occupy their houses"?

HOSPITAL NURSES.

Captain AINSWORTH: 75.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in considering the recent decision of the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, which recommends that no hospital shall
be recognised as a training school for nurses unless possessing 100 beds, he will take into account the particular circumstances of each hospital before agreeing to any such rule as that desired by the General Nursing Council?

Mr. PARKER: No rule on this subject has yet been submitted for my right hon. Friend's approval, and until he has had an opportunity of considering its precise terms it would be premature to make any statement.

NAVAL RESERVISTS (GRATUITY).

Sir H. COWAN: 78.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that whereas members of the Royal Fleet Reserve and the Royal Naval Reserve, respectively, received £50 as a gratuity in the first instance, a further sum of £50 has since been paid to members of the Royal Fleet Reserve on the ground of the depreciated value of money, while no such additional payment has been made to members of the Royal Naval Reserve; and whether, considering that members of both Reserves are equally affected by the depreciation of the currency, the claim of the latter class to the additional gratuity of £50 will now be considered?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The conditions of service in these two forces are different, and the emoluments of each force are fixed at such rates as will afford adequate remuneration for services rendered and attract suitable candidates. The annual retainers for the Royal Naval Reserve have recently been increased, but it is not intended to increase the gratuity also.

LAND CULTIVATION.

Mr. SWAN: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that 830,000 acres have gone out of cultivation in this country during the last three years; and if he will state the number of agricultural workers thrown out of work due to the same; the loss of food production due to the diminished cultivation; and what cost the importation of food of the same amount from other countries entails.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: According to the latest returns the reduction in arable land in Great Britain in 1921 as compared with 1918 was 885,000 acres, and in the total area under crops and permanent grass 875,000 acres. On the other hand there has been a large increase in land returned as "rough grazings" and land used for allotments. As the hon. Member is aware, special efforts were made in 1918 to increase the area of land under the plough in order to meet the position created by War conditions, and that year is not properly comparable with 1921 as regards area of arable land, the labour employed, or the quantity of foodstuffs imported. The area of arable land in 1921 was still 670,000 acres greater than in 1914.

Mr. SWAN: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the second part of my question?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have already said in the main answer that you are comparing the present year with an absolutely abnormal year. If the hon. Member will ask for a comparison between the present year and 1914 I will give it.

Mr. SWAN: The question I asked was the number of men who have been thrown out of work due to the diminishing acreage under cultivation during the last three years.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I could not possibly give the figures. As I have said, it was an abnormal year and I have not the figures to give to the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing against the basis of his Agriculture Act?

Mr. LANE-FOX: Is the result of my hon. Friend's reply that the statement that 830,000 acres have gone out of cultivation is entirely inaccurate?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, quite inaccurate. It does not in the least follow that because land ceases to be arable, therefore it ceases to be under cultivation, and the statement that I see is frequently-made on the platform is quite untrue. There is naturally a small diminution in the amount of land cultivated in every year due to the encroachments of buildings, railways, factories, houses, and so on, but otherwise there is no decrease whatever.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Inasmuch as the state of affairs suggests the desirability of protection for agricultural products, will my hon. Friend consider legislation in that direction?

Mr. G. BARNES: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the increased acreage for allotments?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I should like to have notice, but it is very considerable.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Is not the Government giving a preference to uncultivated land by the Budget of last week?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Certainly not. I never heard before that allotments were uncultivated land.

EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE, MANCHESTER.

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: 70.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now report the result of the interview between the chairman of the Manchester and District Local Employment Committee and Councillor Lawrence Flood on the subject of the resignation of Councillor Flood, which was accompanied by a protest against the Establishment Branch of the Department giving posts in employment exchanges to persons who have retired from business whilst ex-service men are out of employment?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I am informed that the Chairman of the Manchester Employment Committee has seen Councillor Flood, who has withdrawn his resignation from that committee. I should add that the post referred to was a part-time appointment as branch manager, which the present occupant has held for some years. I may add that the appointments to temporary posts at the Exchanges are, in the case of men, confined rigidly to ex-service men. In fact, excluding 747 branch managers—0a very considerable proportion of whom are themselves ex-service men—of the total male temporary staff of the Ministry, 99.16 per cent. are ex-service men.

CONDENSED MILK.

Mr. HURD: 72.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the fact that condensed milk produced
in the United States of America does not ordinarily conform to the standard of quality stipulated in the conditions of Admiralty contracts; and, if so, whether in any forthcoming legislation to deal with milk supplies he will lay down conditions, for the protection of consumers of condensed milk generally, similar to those imposed by the Admiralty to safeguard the health of our seamen?

Mr. PARKER: My right hon. Friend is aware that much of the condensed milk imported into this country from the United States of America is not concentrated to the extent specified in Admiralty contracts. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a question by the hon. Member for the Henley Division on the 1st May.

POSTCARDS.

Mr. J. DAVISON: 77.
asked the Postmaster-General what arrangements he will make to save from loss those persons who find themselves in possession of stocks of three-halfpenny postcards after the date on which the penny postcard comes into use?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The change in the postal rates will not come into effect until the 29th of this month, and I hope in the interval private stocks of three-halfpenny postcards may be exhausted, where they are not still needed for postage abroad. I will consider whether it is possible to devise any means of meeting the difficulty in cases where postcards bearing the higher rate remain on hand after the reduced rate comes into force.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: What will happen if there are also twopenny stamps on hand?

Mr. KELLAWAY: There will be no difficulty with those.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: Can the Home Secretary state what business will be taken next week?

Mr. SHORTT: On Monday the Law of Property Bill, Second Reading; the Electricity Supply Bill, Second Reading,
and the National Health Insurance Bill, Second Reading.
Tuesday, School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, Second Reading; and, if time permits, other Orders on the paper.
Wednesday, Supply, Compensation for Malicious Injuries (Northern Ireland) Grant.
Thursday, Supply, Mines Department Vote.

Mr. CLYNES: In view of the announcement yesterday on the subject of Teachers' Superannuation, that a Committee is to inquire into the conditions of such superannuation, is it now advisable that the time of the House should be taken up with the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has named?

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid that I do not know the details to which my right hon. Friend refers, but it is the Second Reading of the Bill, and no doubt the Committee will still be able to proceed with its inquiry.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we are going to have the Finance Bill?

Mr. SHORTT: The Second Reading will probably be on the 29th inst.

Mr. HOGGE: Is Wednesday one of the allotted Supply days, and may I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury who asked for that Supply on Wednesday?

Mr. SHORTT: Wednesday will not be one of the allotted Supply days.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Do the Government intend to take Order No. 6, Harbours, Docks and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill, to-night?

Mr. SPEAKER: That cannot be taken on an allotted day.

MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP) BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to the marriage of persons with their nephew or niece by marriage," presented by Mr. KENDALL; supported by Major Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Cowan, Captain Evans, Mr. William Graham, Major Hamilton, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Mrs. Wintringham, and Major Mackenzie Wood; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 84.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 84.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday, 22nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have agreed to,—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Cardiff Extension) Bill, with Amendments.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CARDIFF EXTENSION) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. RAWLINSON in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

Orders of the Day — CLASS II.

BOARD OF TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £729,545, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including certain Services arising out of the War and Grants-in-Aid."—[Note: £1,135,000 has been voted on account.]

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I make no apology to the Committee in addressing them on a subject of vital importance to the nation, a subject for the discussion of which only too few opportunities present themselves to the House, namely, the trade and industry of our own country. Opportunities will arise for those who care to criticise the Estimates, and having regard to the number of Members who, naturally, desire to speak, I can do the best service to the House by confining my observations to trade and industry. It is very important, at a time like this, to take a careful survey, and to avoid—if I may borrow those two words of which we have heard so much—optimism or pessimism, and try to see things as they are. There are people who, if they see a crowd round Harrods Stores in the morning, at once write to the papers and say that the great boom has begun. The other night I was dining in the Harcourt Room—a pleasure which I often deny myself—and I had the pleasure of meeting a lady who has taken an interest in politics. I told her that I proposed to speak to-day on the condition of British trade, to which she replied: "That will not take you long." She was a pessimist. I think there is
more to be said about it than that. Even facts and figures are elusive things. If I remember rightly, it was Lord Melbourne who said:
Though you say it is a statement of facts, it is not correctly stated. Facts seldom are.
We will try to get our facts right and try and draw our deductions from them. I wish it were possible standing here to-day, to comprise in one speech, finance as well as trade, because the links that bind together finance and trade are so intimate that they are almost inseparable. Ne sutor supra erepidam. "Let the cobbler stick to his last." I am emboldened to use a tag of that kind, because only on Monday evening the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) charmed the House with a Latin phrase, which must have emerged from his subconscious memory, and of which he offered no translation. In following so excellent a precedent I am sure I am following one which we all desire to maintain. The first thing that strikes one in examining trade conditions at a time like this, and a thing that one regrets, is that the human race cannot profit more than it does by the cumulative experience that has grown up through the various crises in the centuries of the world's history. Each generation, unfortunately, has to build up its own experience. Though experience teaches for a generation, experience very soon becomes crystallised in tradition, and when it has once become tradition it becomes the duty of the advanced thinkers of the next generation to demolish it, and to leave the generations yet to come to learn from the beginning all over again. So easy is it for that to happen, that the people of the world to-day are learning elementary economics at awful cost. Experience is a hard schoolmaster, and I can only hope that the experiences through which we are passing may be so burned into the brains of this generation that they may survive for generations yet to come, and that if ever this country has to go through such a time as we have had in the last few years, those who follow us may be better equipped for the contest than we were.
Possibly it would be convenient if we look, very briefly, at the world position, which is the environment in which we have to do our trade, and then consider
in some detail the conditions at home. If I dwell first upon the adverse conditions at home, I can promise the Committee that before I sit down I shall examine in some detail the many shafts of light that I see coming through the darkness, and I hope to convince the Committee that though we have a long lane before us, though we may not be through the worst, we shall, with perseverance and with courage, come through, and shall emerge once more into better times. The first fact that strikes one, when one looks about the world, is the world impoverishment as a direct result of the War. We see it not only at home, but in remote parts. We see a great deal of Europe broken; we see a great deal of Europe smashed. It is difficult for us here, in spite of hard conditions, to realise how infinitely harder those conditions are in many countries of Europe to-day. But, while we remember that, we must remember also that it was not every country that suffered alike by the War, financially and industrially. There are countries whose position to-day is no worse than their position was in 1914. There are countries which probably are better off. Without attempting to discriminate which may occupy a stationary position and which may be better off, I will remind the Committee that, so far as our Dominions are concerned and so far as the United States of America, South America, Holland, Scandinavia and Spain are concerned, there is nothing in the condition of any of those countries which should prevent them again being large buyers in the world's market.
4.0 P.M.
There is another point which is well worth dealing with for a few moments. It is a point on which I have spoken before. One curious result of the War has been an increase in the spirit of nationalism throughout the world and the desire on the part of countries to be self-contained industrially. That feeling has led to one or two results which I view with some apprehension. There has been an increase in tariffs in many of the countries of the world. This tendency has been visible alike in the newly-formed countries and in the old countries. Such increases must be felt in a country which, like our own, is so dependent on the export of its manufactured goods more than in any other country. I have had many com-
plaints from traders, particularly in regard to France, Italy and Spain. Our traders are also viewing with considerable apprehension the movement that is at present to be observed in the United States of America for still further increase of the tariff, which, so far as manufactured goods go, is almost prohibitive at the present day. Lancashire has been viewing with alarm the increase in the duties in India. Those duties were raised from 7½ per cent. to 11 per cent., and subsequently to 15 per cent. and the duties on luxuries were raised to 20 per cent. and subsequently to 30 per cent. It is quite true that a fiscal Commission, set up in India last autumn, is studying this whole question, and I only hope that the result of its labours may bring some comfort to our manufacturers in this country. I would only add on this subject that, so far, we should hold our own in the Dominions, because, even in instances where increases have been effected in the tariff, we have been treated with considerable generosity in the matter of preference. One other aspect of this same question also causes me anxiety, and that is the attempted discrimination which is now being made in certain maritime countries against our shipping. Our shipping is the vital link in the whole system of our commonwealth of nations. Anything that imperils that imperils not only this country, but every one of our Dominions, and I hope that the Mother Country and the Dominions will take earnest counsel together on this matter before it is too late, so that we may show, in this respect at least, a united front against any attempt that may be made to discriminate against us to damage the position of our shipping.
Then we are faced with another problem, with which this Committee is familiar. That is breakdown of the exchanges, and the consequent need for the restoration of Europe. The restoration of Europe, if there is to be a rapid resumption of trade throughout the world, is vital. The reason, of course, is obvious, and I do not propose to delay the Committee by discussing it, because hon. Members know as well as I do the extent to which the purchase of raw materials by Europe from overseas is one of the great factors in providing credits with which the purchases from overseas of the manufactured goods of this country are to be made. If, owing to any unfore-
seen catastrophe, what is called the restoration of Europe should be delayed, it would make the road to prosperity longer and steeper. But I believe that this country could face such a condition of things better than any other country and that in time we should have to do what we have done before, make up for what we have lost by getting something fresh. We should have to get that by an intensified development of our own Empire and by pushing with renewed vigour into the great markets of the East and the markets or South America. To sum up, as far as the world's markets are concerned to-day, we see but little sign of rapidly increasing trade in the Dominions. We see in India difficulties placed in our way by the tariff, by the falling rupee, and by unliquidated stocks. We see in Japan financial troubles. We see in China political troubles. But we see in South America signs of improvement, and, above all, we see signs of improvement in the United States of America. In Europe I can report but little movement at present, though I am informed by my Department that there is an increasing trade being done with Scandinavia, a part of the world that perhaps suffered less financially from the War than most other parts.
I come now to what really is of the greatest interest to us, and that is a review of our own position at home. Our position in England differs, certainly in degree, from the position of any other country in the world, because to us, above all countries, the root problem is to find employment for our own people. Never was that so necessary as it is to-day, because we have, contrary to all expectation years ago, an increased population in a country already, in my view, industrialised up to the limit of safety. The increase of national wealth that would have taken place in the last eight years has not taken place, so we have to face this problem poorer than we were. We have to export for our life—export for our food. We have to pay for our food with our exports, and to export we must have raw materials. It is true that in this country we have coal, the greatest asset, perhaps, that a country can have; we have, too, a great deal of ironstone, but, apart from those, the amount of raw material that we have for our staple industries is a compara-
tively small quantity. If you consider our exporting industries, you see at once what I mean. Practically all Lancashire and a great deal of Yorkshire depend on imported raw materials. Cotton, the greater part of wool, jute, copper and flax are only among numberless materials which have to be imported into this country and paid for before we can begin to export. That is the position, and, while we have to meet that situation, we have some grave problems to face. The short boom that followed the War filled our warehouses and our works with quantities of high-priced stocks, all of which have had to be liquidated. Liquidation is always a painful process. Liquidation is not yet complete, and, where that liquidation has to be completed, there will, I fear, still be stagnation in trade and probably failures in business. But I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that by now these stocks are liquidated for the most part and that the bulk of the industries in this country can now start clear of that incubus.
I should like to say a word or two about taxes, because there has been a great deal of talk in this Committee about the pressure of taxes on business. I think that sometimes people who have had no experience of business find it difficult to realise what is the weight of taxes. I can sum it up best by putting it in this way. Business in this country is very largely carried on on credit. Improvements and replacements, which are absolutely necessary for the continuance of industry, are effected by savings. The tax collector is the only man that I know of, unless it be the bookmaker, who does not give credit. All taxes have to be paid in cash. The consequence, especially in bad times, is that many of the businesses of this country have been completely skinned of working capital. That makes it far more difficult than it otherwise would be even to carry on business. It makes it impossible for them to maintain in a desirable state of efficiency their plant and machinery. Therefore, it is that a reduction of taxation, as and when it can be effected, is one of the most vital needs of the industries of our country.
I could not help thinking that there was something rather happy in the text that appeared this morning on my calendar on my desk, for when I tore off the date and
looked at the 11th May, I read these words:
Seek happiness in limiting your desires rather than in satisfying them.
I do not think there could be a better motto either for the Treasury, or for industry, or for each individual hon. Member of this House, and I make them a present of it. Of the interference with the trade of this country that has been caused by labour troubles I do not propose to say anything at this stage, although I have one or two remarks to make about it before I finish. With regard to the trades themselves, I am very anxious to avoid being tedious or giving figures, but it might be of interest just to look at the half-dozen staple industries and give some estimate of their present position. First of all I should like to say a word or two about the coal trade. The coal trade is one which has had more vicissitudes in the last three or four years than have fallen to the lot of any industry in the history of this country. This is not the time to comment on those vicissitudes, but I do wish to point out this very remarkable fact to the Committee. The coal trade is the one, and as far as I know the only, trade in this country which after protracted and very severe suffering has got down to an economic level.

Mr. G. BARKER: Starvation wages.

Mr. BALDWIN: The result of that has been—I am pointing out facts—that the coal trade is the only trade in this country where the export trade, far beyond what anyone expected last Christmas, has come back to something like the pre-War average. For the country nothing could be of greater importance, because coal is one of the most valuable exports that we have, and until we can begin to export freely we shall not begin to find the machinery of paying for our goods. Until coal goes out freely we cannot send our ships out with cargoes; the one natural process which, as it proceeds, must lead to that reduction of freight which cheapens the importation of the goods we purchase. Unfortunately, industrial coal has not yet been in great demand. That cannot come until the trade of the country, as a whole, begins to improve, and until the coal trade can fill up their orders with industrial coal as well as export coal, you will not get that output
which will enable coal in this country to be sold at a lower price. Nor will you get that demand and that cheapening of the cost of production which will enable the coal trade to be a paying trade once more, and as a paying trade to bring up, what we all want to see, the wages of those engaged in it. It is a source of satisfaction, as far as the export trade in coal is concerned, to know that the foreign bunker trade has almost completely regained the position that it filled before the War.
With regard to the iron and steel trades, they are going through a very difficult time. It is true that more orders have been taken, and that they are getting down now to a price at which they can compete; but it is also true that the world is not yet convinced that the bottom has been reached, and orders are being held up. So far as the industry is concerned, it has not yet got, and I do not think will get in the immediate future, into a paying position. If the industry can hold its own, it is as much as it cart do. Still, it is something to see orders, and orders from abroad, coming in. The only thing for it, which is, after all, the only thing for all of us, is patience and hard work.
Of the cotton trade I would observe this: that they have had a great many difficulties to contend with, difficulties that have arisen largely from the fact that their great trade is with the East, and the Indian trade has not only been hampered so far as they are concerned by the Indian tariff, but it has been hampered by the large amount of frozen bills in that country which are awaiting liquidation. The industry has faced, with great courage and with great commonsense, the cheapening of production which has been necessary for it to get once more into the foreign market. Up to now, I think that Lancashire has set an example to the country in the way in which it has been able to settle, as it has so often settled, its trade disputes without involving the rest of the country in the maelstrom. Of wool I am given comparatively cheerful accounts; the trade is fairly busy throughout, and there is some improvement, not only in yarns, which I understand have been very busy, but also in piece goods. What is true of wool is true of hosiery.
The leather trade shows a slight improvement, but here again the growth
of tariffs abroad is injuring that great industry; for boots and shoes, which have become one of the great industries of this country, are feeling the effect of the attempt of certain of our Dominions to build up a protected home industry. One of the best markets—that of South Africa—for the boot and shoe trade is one in which now they are finding very great difficulties in introducing themselves. The chemical trade is improving, both in heavy and fine chemicals, but of engineering and machine tools I think the less said the better. The electrical trades are fairly busy. Textile machinery has been very busy. Whether that is wholly a good thing or not it is difficult to say, because the demand that is being satisfied is for textile machinery for countries which in the near future will be very serious competitors of our own.
A word about shipbuilding. At the moment I think that perhaps the prospects in that trade are less hopeful than in any other. For various reasons, and partly because there is a general impression that the costs of shipbuilding have not yet got to the bottom, no one will place orders for shipbuilding. The only ray of light that I have in that direction arises from this fact. It may be that the inventive genius of this country will once more come to our aid, and when a new type of engine is perfected for propelling tramp steamers, so as to lessen costs and increase room, I think then you will find orders for ships given with freedom. I am told by those who know that they are not without hope that in the next two years some such invention may be perfected that will lead to the building of steamers, both for this country and for foreign countries, to such an extent as will give our yards full employment.
So far I have been speaking about difficulties and causes of depression. I want to turn to the other side, because there is another side. While no man can make forecasts with accuracy at a time like this, I think yet we may be able, before I sit down, to draw one or two definite conclusions. We all remember during the War how difficult it was to make fore-caste; how many forecasts proved wrong; how many unexpected things happened. If that happened in the War, small wonder that it has happened in the peace; small wonder that many prophesies made three years ago have gone awry; and small
wonder that the most experienced amongst us have been deceived. When I look at the other side I see, in the first place, that this country is in possession of a very great productive power, probably a greater productive power than she has ever had before; and, as has always been the ease in this country, we are as well equipped, I think, as we have ever been in the skill and the brains of those who engage in industry, management and workmen alike. The inventive genius of this country is still with us. London, in spite of the gloomy prognostications made during the War, is still and will remain the financial centre of the world. Those markets which have maintained their headquarters in London retain their headquarters there still, and such attempts as have been made to take them from us have been unsuccessful. We have seen, and I have described, the restoration of our coal exports, and we are going, through a time of cheap money, which means that when industry does revive, at any rate for a time, there will be the chance of borrowing on reasonable terms what is necessary for starting and for re-equipment.
The reputation of our country stands high in the world and it is a reputation which has been raised by our traders. The reason that to-day we are still holding our own in our great markets overseas in China, India and South America, and hope to reap our reward later on, is because in those countries for generations our traders have gone forth. They have lived there, traded there, they have known the people, known the markets, and they have taught the people in those markets to rely on the Englishman's word, on the quality of his goods and on the justice with which he treats contracts. It will be for the generation of to-day to live up to the reputation earned by those who went before, realising what an asset that is to us to-day, and seeing that, while reaping the benefit for themselves, they pass on that great heritage undimmed. We have in this country an amount of inherent aptitude for business and of knowledge of business, greater than exists in any country of the world, and we still have initiative, and as long as the initiative of the individual is allowed free play I have no fear but that we shall penetrate into the markets of the world in the future and hold them as
we have done in the past, and, if I may say so here, I think that the attitude of the Government in these matters should be one of kindly but quietly unobtrusive beneficence.
I have got two more things to say as to the direction in which we have really good reason for hope. I said some short time ago that I should return to the subject of the United States of America. It has often happened that good trade in the world at large has started with good trade in the United States of America, and, although the United States of America is no longer a great market for our manufactured goods, in America-trade is improving. The conviction there is that things have touched bottom and it is of great interest to note that the index figures of wholesale prices of commodities in America, after pursuing their feverish course on the temperature chart, very much as they pursued it in this country, fell down some few months ago, oscillated for a time and are remaining stationary, or I should say were remaining stationary, because there is just a symptom now of a move in the upward direction. It is a curious fact that a few months behind America the same thing is happening here. I have had the index figures looked into in my Department recently. The same phenomena occurred. During the last three or four months they are just quietly oscillating about a fixed point, and they look as though they were going to be stationary for a time. It does not follow from that that some commodities may not yet have to fall, but it does show that commodities as a whole are sufficiently near the bottom to encourage traders to begin to buy, and that is a necessary condition precedent to any improvement in trade.
Bearing on that, the exports from this country show very much what I expected. When I came to look into—this is the only figure I am going to give the Committee—the percentage figures of our export of manufactured and partly manufactured goods, calculated by my experts, as to their real volume, I found that if we take the figure of 100 in 1913 we are to-day at a figure of 65. That is 35 points below 1913, which we should all expect, and 10 points below the boom of 1920, which we might also expect, but it is 17 points above the bottom which was
touched last year, so that it shows that we are slowly climbing out of this appalling pit into which we fell at the time of the collapse of the post-war boom, and I think that that in itself, coupled with what we learn from these index figures, should give us real and positive hope that we may be on the eve of seeing better times. I do not mean to stand many minutes more between the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) and the Committee, because twice, when he has essayed to address this House on a subject very nearly related to myself, owing to circumstances over which I had no control, I was unable to hear the finish of his speech, and I am very anxious to do so to-day. But there are one or two things I do want to say in conclusion.
Though I have spoken many times on this subject, there is one aspect of it that lies more closely to my heart than any other. It is this. We have, undoubtedly, every prospect in this country of recovering, retaining and improving the position in industry which we have always held in the world. My forecast at the moment is that trade will continue the slow and gradual improvement which, I believe, has begun. I said before that I believed that it would be a long lane. I believe that it will be, but I am sure that the turning is coming. It rests with us ourselves very much when the turning comes and whether we take advantage of it. I think it essential to maintain our position, which, after all, means our life, that while we preserve that individualistic self-reliance, which has always been the great attribute of our people, we require to develop more a communal sense which realises that our work is not only for ourselves, for our own shop, for our own industry, but is for our own people and for our own commonwealth of nations. We hope and believe that we are passing away from militarism in Europe. We want to pass away from militarism in industry. Now that we do not talk about fights and battles overseas we want to get rid in this country of talking about fights and battles at home. The responsibility laid on the trading community of this country is very great, and by the trading community of the country I mean everyone who helps to produce in this country. The responsibility is no less
than that of feeding and trying to keep in comfort the people of our island because, as I said when I began, our people are dependent entirely on the trade of the country for everything that they have.
We want to realise that and to realise that every check to industry is a check to our own prosperity, that our work is for all and not only for ourselves, and we want to realise that every deliberate stoppage of production in this country is a deliberate lowering of the standard of life for our people which it should be our duty to preserve and improve. I believe that in the wholehearted pursuit of our business in this country we can see before us an illimitable prospect of improvement in the social conditions of our people. But it can only be by all of us working together, and by all of us working from the top of the country to the bottom inspired with the ideal that there is nothing which we cannot accomplish. At no time in our history have there been greater opportunities before this country. We should always remember what we have passed through together in these last few years, and, eager to serve the living, let us progress together with a reasoned hope and with a serene confidence in our future.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move "That Sub-head A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."
I should like, as the first speaker on this question, to express, which I am certain is in the minds of all hon. Members who have listened to the discourse of the President of the Board of Trade. That is an appreciation of the ability and the information which he has brought to bear on his general survey of trade conditions in this country, and, I may add, an appreciation of the peculiar charm of which he alone is the special master in illustrating the points which he brings to the attention of hon. Members. But the right hon. Gentleman has given us what I may call a very detached and very impersonal account of trade conditions. He told us what trade was like in this country, what the prospects were, and what the conditions were at home, but he said Very little on a subject which certainly interests some of us very much. I mean the Government's own attitude towards trade, and the regulations and administrative
action for which the Government itself is responsible in its dealings with trade. The President of the Board of Trade is the most highly qualified man in the whole country to give us the survey which we have just got, but he is also called upon to defend himself and his Department when criticised, as I am afraid he may be, for the policy for which that Department has been responsible since the War.
The right hon. Gentleman expressed his impatience to hear the peroration of a speech with the exordium of which he has been perfectly familiar at 11 o'clock. He will get the peroration on this occasion. I only hope I shall get the answer. I am much more anxious to hear the answer than to deliver the peroration. The right hon. Gentleman passed over very lightly what he called the financial aspect of the Government's policy towards trade. That is natural. He is the President of the Board of Trade and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But it would be impossible to leave a general consideration without pointing out that in the opinion of those most highly qualified to judge it is the continuous expenditure of the Government year after year, expenditure which their own Committee has now shown to be largely unnecessary, that is responsible to some extent for the state of depression in which trade finds itself to-day. I see that such an authority as Professor Armstrong, in an interview on this financial question, said, "Industry is fighting for its life." He was referring to the urgent necessity for some relief from the financial burdens which have been laid upon industry in consequence of the Government's policy.
I will pass from the financial question, which is more appropriate to the discussion of the Exchequer Vote, and I will come to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made. In the only indication we have got of a general kind as to what he conceives should be our attitude towards trade problems, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the general rise in the spirit of nationalism and the growing weight of tariffs in every country. He did not say anything about the growing weight of tariffs in this country. I am using only the language of the apologists of the Government when I say that the work is well begun. It would have been appropriate if, in animadverting on the tariffs of other countries,
the President of the Board of Trade had taken into account the fact that the Government have been responsible for Imposing tariffs in this country also. I take it that the needs of the moment are adequately summed up in the Cannes Resolutions, which are to be laid before the Genoa Conference. Let me read a short sentence from them:
The Conference will consider how the existing impediments to the free interchange of the products of different countries can be removed, particularly regulations governing the admission of foreigners for the purpose of carrying on business.
When you get into the light of the Genoa Conference, and see statesmen meeting for the purpose of abolishing tariffs, promoting the free interchange of commodities and the free passage of nationals from one country to another, how quaint and ridiculous appears a backward glance over the Government's own policy since the end of the war… Many hon. Members can remember the speech made by Sir Auckland Geddes when, after months and months of inquiry, we were told that the policy was locked in a box. When the box was opened every sort of thing emerged except hope. There followed a jumble of legislation, of control, of passports, and of alien restrictions. The Government seemed to forget that aliens might come over here to buy our goods, and that people might desire to travel freely over the country to sell our goods. If I wished for another summary of the standpoint which we should assume towards trade to-day, I could quote a sentence from a speech by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Our duty is to re-create and regulate our vanished and impoverished customers. With 2,000,000 unemployed we are bound to consider a revival of world-credit and the stimulus of the purchasing power of potential customers as vital to our well-being.
That, in 1922, is understood by all to be the spirit which should animate Government policy. But what is the history of the Government policy? For two years they employed the British Navy to blockade a potential customer and no goods were allowed to pass into or out of that country. That spirit has entirely vanished. I do not think animosity is shown to the Russian Government because it is proposed to put a tax of 33⅓ per cent, on Teddy Bears. Germany is another potential customer. What has
been the Government's policy to assist in the restoration of a most important and potentially very great trade with Germany? Merely to engage themselves in reparation demands which are at the root of much of our trouble. Nobody can travel in Europe and speak to the people of the different countries, or study the problems in the newspapers, without at every turn falling over this question of reparation. The disarmament pact, the peace guarantee at Genoa, is held up. Why? Because some of those who should sign it will not sign it because they hope to use force against one another with a view to exacting reparation. Side by side with that we are having held up to the public the hope that very substantial sums can be secured from Germany. A quaint paradox is the Government introducing legislation to prevent German goods from reaching this country.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to foreign tariffs and told us what a great deal of harm they were doing. Has he ever considered that, in some cases at least, the imposition of these tariffs may be in the nature of retaliation for duties which we impose? We have continued in defiance of pledges to put on what are called the new Import Duties. We have given a preference. The right hon. Gentleman sees in that only a form of encouragement of our own Dominions. It penalises also some of our Allies. Look at the imports of cocoa, and of rum, spirits, and other articles from France. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the imports have been most materially reduced owing to the preferential duty imposed against France. In dealing with the great harm which tariffs have done to our trade abroad, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has taken into account how far some part of those tariffs may be retaliatory for duties that we have imposed? Is it not true that at the time the French Government protested against the Safeguarding of Industries Act? A correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph" announced in an article in that newspaper, at the time the Bill was passing through this House, that French trade regarded it as a stab in the back. I observe only in to-days newspaper that M. Millet, writing in the "Petit Parisian," says:
It is forgotten that these difficulties are the result of the general situation and also of that selfish Protectionist policy which
England followed on the morrow of the peace, and which produced in trade an almost immediate dislocation of the interallied economic organisations.
Why is it proper for the President of the Board of Trade to stand here and raise complaints against other countries for imposing tariffs when we are doing the very same thing against others, forgetful that every import less into this country is one export less? If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to improve exports he can do it only by improving the flow of trade in every direction.
Let me pass from more general considerations to the question of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and its administration. Part I of the Act was recommended to this House and was passed on the distinct understanding that it was necessary to safeguard the military needs of this country. It was not a general measure of protection. The Bill was to safeguard the vital supplies on which the life of the nation depends in war. It was the lesson of the War put on the Statute Book. It is impossible to say what the military needs in a future war will be. I noticed within the last few days an announcement in a newspaper that a silent aeroplane had been invented. Whether or ot that is true now, it will be true some day. Such an invention would be the most dangerous engine of war that could be conceived. But the right hon. Gentleman taxes the constituent parts of motors. Silencers are liable to the tax unless proof is given that they are needed for a special purpose. That is only a small example. It is quite likely that the effect of this tariff may be to suppress the very form of enterprising development of research on which our military safety in the future may depend.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the shipbuilding trade as being in a bad way, but he thought that perhaps an inventive genius in this country might be found able to devise something which will mark great progress. Who is handicapping science to-day except the right hon. Gentleman himself? He talks about relying on the inventive genius of the country. Yet he is taxing their light, their instruments, their books, and he is evoking from the great scientists, not partisans, protests in the newspapers that their work of research is being hampered by his legislation.

Mr. G. TERRELL: No.

5.0 P.M.

Captain BENN: The hon. Member for Chippenham says "No." I do not want to worry the Committee with quotations. Professor Armstrong is the first I could quote and Lord Rayleigh is the second. I suppose the hon. Member for Chippenham would not deny that these men are great scientists? Then he is putting a tax by this Act on the health of the people. The development of that idea I will leave in the more competent hands of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray). Although the right hon. Gentleman gave a pledge to the House that no tax would be placed on food, a tax is being placed on certain constituent of the people's food. Then trade is hampered by delay, which fact has been brought out with great force and cogency by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley), and the intentions of this House have been flouted by the decisions given—inevitably, I suppose, under the legislation passed. I refer particularly to the decision about gas mantles. I remember the right hon. Gentleman said in the House, when the matter was first raised, that gas mantles were not in the Act. Now we find they are in the Act, and the Act has gone beyond the power of the right hon. Gentleman to govern its operation. The result is that, among the positive harm which this Act is doing, we are encouraging foreign manufacturers at the expense of home manufacturers. I hope the hon. Member for Chippenham will take note of that. If he wishes to eat with a celluloid knife and fork, if it be bought from a British manufacturer, it is taxed, and if he gets it from a German manufacturer it is not taxed, because the raw material coming into this country is taxed but the finished product from Germany is not taxed. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded by this legislative device in putting a tax on British manufacturers. We all remember perfectly well the arguments on which the Bill was based. The patriots, the people who remembered the lessons of the War, which we were supposed to have forgotten, said, "Have you forgotten the menace of the aeroplane?" The right hon. Gentleman has taxed musical birds. "Have you forgotten that the submarine nearly starved us?" The right hon. Gentleman has put a swinging duty upon fish-pond games. I remember the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Fildes) com-
ing in one night, about dinner-time, and making a most impassioned speech. He said:
It is indeed a surprising thing to me that the hem. Members opposite have forgotten the dark and dreary days of the War.… We are the men who remember, and it is lamentable that any body of hon. Members should make light sport of what was a great tragedy … the position in which we were when, like poverty-stricken people, we were begging for the required material to allow our brave officers to save the lives of our brave men.
No such charge can be laid against the President of the Board of Trade. He has taxed face-powder. 6,500 articles, apparently copied from German catalogues, were published as articles dutiable under this Act. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could clear up a small difficulty? Why was the letter "R" put against the articles when standing for the word "pure"? I understand it was because it is the first letter of the German word for "pure," and these articles were collected bolus-bolus from the German catalogues to form the basis of the British tariff. I am told that in this list is what is called hæmaglobin, and that every single patriot returning to this country, flushed with pride on seeing again the white cliffs of Albion, or boiling with indignation at the misdeeds of foreigners in general, carries in his veins pints of this dutiable article, which he brings through the Customs' barrier without the right hon. Gentleman's sleuth-hounds being able to impose a tax upon it.
It is quite useless for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "Well, the effect of the tariff has been to create a little industry here, to bring a few men into employment, and to improve the prospects of this little trade or that little trade." That is not for what it was introduced at all. It was introduced, we were told, as a matter of vital necessity for the defence of this country. That is the only proper object for the expenditure of the taxpayers' money. Supposing someone were to go to the President of the hoard of Trade and say, "We depend upon the Navy for our safety"—as, of course, we do—" Do you propose to maintain dockyards? "He would say," Certainly. Dockyards are necessary for the Navy. Supposing the Admiralty said, "But this dockyard is not necessary from the naval point of view, but other interests have
to be served." The right hon. Gentleman would become indignant, and would say that no money spent on the dockyards was justifiable, except for public defence, and that no private interest should be allowed to come into the matter at all.
I propose to gratify the right hon. Gentleman's impatience as to the matter of Part II of this Act. Part II is to deal with "the growing and dangerous evil of the dumping of German goods." An agreement was reached between Members of the Government on this subject in 1918, when the famous manifesto was issued which has been the basis of Government policy ever since. During the passage of the Bill through the House, it was made amply clear by the right hon. Gentleman, and every Government speaker, that certain machinery was to be set up, and that if a certain result was produced, Government action would become automatic. There was no doubt that was the expectation of the House, and it was founded upon the most specific utterances of the Ministers. More than that, they went far beyond what was necessary, and they explained it was not merely in the cold pursuance of some technical policy that they were doing this thing, but they were driven forward almost by a moral sense of the necessity of acting. The Minister of Health, whose continued absence from Free Trade debates we all deplore, said that if a complaint were well-founded, an order would be made. "Suppose we do not make an order?" somebody says. The Minister replies, "Such a course would be absolutely suicidal, criminal, to the great interests we have to safeguard," and even the right hon. Gentleman himself, whose oratory is not so highly coloured as that of the Minister of Health, but carries a great deal more weight with the House,, said that no Government which was faithful to its duty could neglect taking some steps to protect employment in a time like this. That was with reference to Part II of the Act, and the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) indulged in similar flights to those of the Minister of Health. He said that if they did not make these orders, it would be not only negligent, but criminal.
What has happened? Six of these inquiries have been held, and I do not know how many orders have been made
by the Committee, but we do know of one—in the case of gloves. It was a very illuminating inquiry—what one might call a miniature debate on Fiscal Reform or Protection—on this issue of gloves. No doubt, by imposing a tax on gloves, you can assist a small trade in one part of the country. No one has ever denied that a tariff is an advantage to a small trade which comes under its shelter, but it was found in the course of the inquiry, or rather afterwards, that, while making an order to benefit a, small industry, say, in Somersetshire, at the same time you were forced to damage a bigger industry in Lancashire. Of course, you can benefit your friends—I say it in no offensive sense—persons who ask for the tariff, but, in doing so, you are bound to do more general harm than the particular good you seek. If you make no order, I think it is a very good thing, but you flout the House of Commons. There is no doubt at all that the House of Commons believed that if the Committee made a recommendation, an order would be made, and although I am a. Free Trader, I am much more strongly a House of Commons man, and I would rather see the House of Commons prevail, because we can and will change its composition. If you take no decision at all, which is the stern and manly course being pursued by the Government at the present moment, who say, "You must wait," or "It is going to be considered," or "Someone is at Genoa," or something of that kind, then you do the worst harm of all. Let me read just three lines of great wisdom, I need hardly say, from the temple of wisdom at Genoa:
It is disastrous to trade to have constant changes in its conditions, the constant interposition of fresh obstacles and uncertainty as to special treatment. What the trader needs is certainty.
The House will hardly credit the statement that that quotation is from the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department. That is his statement in the serener and more inspiring atmosphere at Genoa, but his statement in the House was that if we did not impose these fresh obstacles to trade we should be guilty of action which was reprehensible and criminal, or words to that effect. What is the Government going to do? What is the right hon. Gentleman going to say about this, and what is the hon. Member for Chippenham going to do about it? He got his Act of Parliament. It has
been passed, and he got a really substantial and creditable majority for it. There is a Cabinet in this country which is deciding issues day by day—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—well, postponing issues day by day. There is an acting Prime Minister, and even Lord Birkenhead has returned from Genoa. What can be the reason for failing to implement the pledges given in the form of an Act of Parliament to the hon. Member for Chippenham, and what is he going to do about it?

Mr. G. TERRELL: Ask the other side.

Captain BENN: I will ask them, too. But there is going to be a Division very shortly, for I am going to move a reduction. What is the hon. Member going to do? Will he support me or take this flouting with a degree of deference which is very creditable to his good nature? What will the rest of the House do? They will support the Government, because, I venture to say, there never was a House in the history of our Constitution so servile to a Government which was so divided.
This is my final inquiry. What is the Government trade policy? For all the survey which we had, we had no light on that subject. There are two policies: there is the policy of Protection, the Conservative and Tory policy, and there is the Liberal policy of Free Trade, Does either of these animate the Government? May I ask the President of the Board of Trade this question: Does he consider that the Government's policy, so far as it affects his Department, is governed by President Wilson's Fourteen Points? I do not know whether I might pause for a reply. The right hon. Gentleman wraps himself in the imperishable raiment of silence, but the Prime Minister says, when questioned by his Liberal supporters:
Clause 3 of Mr. Wilson's Charter of Fourteen Points prevents every idea of economic war to follow the war of arms. I was reared in Liberalism. I am too old now to change"—
I am not speaking of myself, but quoting the august words of the Prime Minister:
I cannot leave Liberalism.
Tim Colonial Secretary, who also speaks for the Government on the question of Free Trade, said he stood where he had ever stood. That seems quite clear, and would satisfy the warmest adherents among the Coalition Liberals of the Gov-
ernment's policy. That is a Free Trader; but let us take another and a very well-informed and powerful Minister, an advocate of the Government, the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. The Colonial Secretary said he stood where he had ever stood. The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty said:
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's great policy, is it not that that is being done to-day by the Government in the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
Where do we stand? Can we have some light on this question? The Mayor of Bath informed us of an unpublished incident in the newspapers recently. Apparently insisting at one time on seeing the Prime Minister in his house, he was at last admitted, and found the Prime Minister in his private rooms engaged in reading "Pilgrim's Progress," and the Prime Minister informed him that he had read "Pilgrim's Progress" 32 times. I wonder whether his eye has ever caught this passage in a conversation between Mr. Moneylove, Mr. By-ends, and Mr. Facing-both-ways. It might almost be a Cabinet discussion. One of the interlocutors says:
Suppose a minister, a worthy man, possessed but of a very small benefice, and has in his eye a greater, more fat and plump by far; he has also now an opportunity of getting it … because the temper of the people requires it, by altering of some of his principles; for my part, I see no reason but a man may do this (provided he has a call). Aye, and more a great deal beside, and vet be an honest man. For why?

Sir WILLIAM PEARCE: I submit that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), in making an attack on the trade policy of the Government, omitted to raise the important matters and mentioned those which are not of much consequence. I was a member of the famous Committee set up in 1917 to consider our commercial and industrial policy after the War, and the schedule which is in question and the policy with regard to dyestuffs are the result of the recommendations made by that Committee. I do not want to attach too much consequence to what was done in 1917, because things have changed since, but this was not a party recommendation. It was a unanimous recommendation with regard to dyestuffs and the safeguarding of industries. The whole of the articles included in the Dyestuffs Act
and the Safeguarding of Industries Act were carefully examined by the Balfour of Burleigh Committee, and there was no division of opinion in recommending the Government to safeguard these industries, not because they were only necessary for War purposes, but because they were required in times of peace for the industrial life of the country. It was because it was felt that these articles were almost entirely manufactured by our enemy countries and that there was no proper supply of them here, that the Balfour of Burleigh Committee made the recommendations which the Government finally embodied in the Dyestuffs Act and the Safeguarding of Industries Act. If the Government had not brought forward this legislation, two things are quite certain, namely, that the organic chemical industry of this country would have disappeared and that there would be no dyestuffs industry and no fine chemical industry here. It would be quite impossible, in the present condition of the German industrial situation, for these industries to exist in this country unless they received the protection of these two Acts. It is very unfortunate, but I want the House to be good enough to remember, when they listen to the attacks on the Government trade policy, that unless these two Acts had been passed the dye-stuffs and fine chemical industries would have disappeared from this country for the time being, as certainly as that I am standing here now. I do not think the House has ever attached sufficient importance to what would have happened if the Government had not proceeded in the way for which it has been attacked this afternoon.
I submit, and I think I can show, that these two industries can only exist for the time being under Protection, and that they are absolutely necessary for the well-being of the country, not for war but for peace purposes. I submit that the policy of the House ought to be, not to destroy these industries, but to get rid of the inconveniences and the troublesome conditions with which they have to contend. In addition to the old Free Trade party war cry, there are two other very powerful interests whose toes are trodden on and who are naturally in opposition to this legislation—I refer to a certain section of the textile interests and the importers of foreign goods, who are so extremely well represented and vocal
in this House. One can understand the position of both of them. The textile people, or rather one section of them only, the section chat takes the short view, are opposing this Act. Before the War the textile industries, with regard to the provision of colours, were extremely well treated, for they had the full range of all the German colours at the lowest possible prices, and not only that, but there were agents of the German dye companies who went about instructing customers in the application of their dyes. If there were no disadvantages, that was a position which could not be very much bettered, but the long-sighted people in the dye industry see quite clearly that they were then only existing on sufferance, and I submit that it is a very bad policy for the textile industry to allow themselves to continue in that position. In those days dyestuffs, which would not now exist except for the policy of the Board of Trade, were imported into this country from abroad to the extent of from 80 to 90 per cent, of the dyestuffs used here. Today the proportions are not quite reversed, but they are very nearly reversed, and so the policy of the. Government has had a large success. There has been an enormous increase in the production of dyestuffs in this country.
A year before the, Dyestuffs Act was passed, there had been a judgment under which the country was flooded with German productions. Then there came a big slump in the textile industry, and consequently the dyestuffs and fine chemical industries had to meet a situation of unexampled difficulty. France have made, and Italy are thinking of making, an arrangement with the Germans in order to meet the position, as they are not fully prepared to cover it themselves. I think we are taking the best course, and that is why I am supporting the Government in this policy of theirs over these two Acts. We are in a different position from France and Italy. I have had to feel the pulse of the German chemical industry, and I heard myself a few months ago, and had it confirmed only a few days since, that the German chemical industry are taking quite a different view of this country from that which they are taking of France and Italy. I would like to point out that this policy is pretty well marked, even on the question of price. With regard
to the manufactures in this country, the Germans quote a very low price, but for the dyes they manufacture themselves, secure from competition, they quote a very high price, and this again supports my argument that if they are not very careful the textile industry here will be again living on sufferance.
The German view with regard to this country is this. First of all, we alone have a position created by the Aliens Act passed by this House. Until it was put to me by my German acquaintances I had not realised how seriously the Aliens Act affected German business operations in this country in the matter of legal rights, which for the duration of the, Aliens Act are denied to Germany. Conditions of this sort did not prevail in France or Italy, and that is another of the great reasons why we are being forced back on our own endeavours. Now, when arrangements have been made with France and probably with Italy, the Germans think they cannot afford to restrict further, the work of their own factories, so we are going to have to meet the full blast of this German competition, and very few people in this country realise how powerful that opposition is. This industry in Germany has been treated with the same precision as their military work was treated by the German General Staff, and to-day the whole of the German chemical industries are, controlled by one Board. For the industry in this country to stand up against these forces, unaided, is quite impossible, and, therefore, the Balfour of Burleigh Committee was right in the recommendation it made to the Government, that, for the time being, some protection must be afforded to these two industries. The German view is that they can afford to wait, and that the dyestuffs industry and the fine chemical industry, without the encouragement of public opinion, will languish and finally will be destroyed, and we shall be placed again in the position we were in before the War, a position in which these enormous and most important industries will have no home in this country and we shall be dependent on foreign supplies.
As to the importance of these industries, anyone who reads the German scientific papers will find that not only the big German syndicate controlling the chemical industries, but the German people and the German Government, have
come to the conclusion that the organic chemical industry, including dyestuffs and fine chemicals, is one of the greatest assets they possess. These are looked upon as being even more important than the steel trade, and they are looked upon as being important not only for to-day, but being of enormous consequence in relation to the future industrial development of the world. The same view is taken in America. Here in this country we do not realise the importance, even at the present moment, of these industries. What their importance may be in the future nobody can tell, but the best judges I have met look upon them as constituting one of the greatest assets any nation can possess. I heard the late Lord Moulton, in the last public utterance he made, and it was on this subject. He spoke with the greatest solemnity in deploring the lack of appreciation shown in this country of the importance of these industries, and went so far as to say, that no countrycould afford in the future to do without them, that certainly no country could occupy a first place without them, and also, that the measure of a country could be taken by the way in which it promoted, encouraged, and established these big industries.
If I am right, or anywhere near right, and if these two industries cannot exist without these two Acts of Parliament, namely, the Dyestuffs Act and the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it is no use criticising those Measures in regard to the small things which they cover. We want to get to the really big question, and the point I submit is that these two industries connected with synthetic organic chemistry, that is the dyestuffs industry, and the fine chemicals industry, are of such supreme importance that we cannot afford to allow them to go. If this agitation succeeds in getting Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and the Dyestuffs Act repealed, then both these industries will die, and we shall have made an unpardonable mistake. It will be an enormous reproach to this country if British brains are not able to make these two industries a success. I think British brains are the best in the world, and our scientific men have succeeded in the chemical field in producing many of the most important inventions. If we have no organic chemical industry in this country, there is no possible
chance of applying the brains of our own people, to advantage, in this particular respect. They go to Germany, and the Germans have the benefit of them. If you allow these two industries to be wiped out, you do not leave any incitement to scientific research and discovery in this country. It is no use a large number of our best minds devoting themselves to science, if there are no facilities in this country which allow them to apply the results. I heard a remark from the other side of the House about chemical manufacturers, but nothing with which I have ever been connected is included in these schedules. It is only my general knowledge of the industry which has induced me to try and impress the House with the fact that the attack which is being made on these two Measures, on small points, is of no avail. We have to say "Yes" or "No" to this question. Do we want the dyestuffs industry and the organic chemical industry and are they of first-class importance? If we say "Yes" we are obliged to support both Part I. of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and also the Dyestuffs Act, because without them it is as certain as that I am standing here that both industries would, for the time being, disappear.

Mr. FILDES: May I, in the first place, say how delighted I was with the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. In common with other Members of the House I wish to testify to the unvarying courtesy and sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman extends to any deputations which wait on him on matters affecting the commerce of this country. I wish to speak particularly with reference to the Dyestuffs Act. To my mind it is hopelessly bad. There is not a redeeming feature connected with it, in its present form. There is a great deal of difference between a 33⅓ per cent, duty and prohibition, but prohibition is the power conferred upon persons in authority in this country, under the Act. They have absolute power to prohibit certain dyestuffs coming into this country. I contend that is a bad feature altogether, apart from the arguments used by the hon. Member who has just spoken. One or two men should not have the right to say to the rest of the community, that they are not to have certain goods which are considered necessary for the carrying on of particular businesses. It is un-British and unnatural
to place one or two men in the dictatorial position of being able to say, "No, you shall not have it, and our word is final." I am against any Act or any arrangement which places in the hands of one or two individuals that great power
I have here a little information which is very illuminating as to the way in which this Act works. The Committee will understand I am not raising any point as to whether the 33⅓ per cent, duty is wise or not. The point I am trying to get at is that of prohibition. There are eight or nine very large users of indigo in Manchester, who combine for joint buying so that they may get the advantage of placing their orders in bulk and a corresponding reduction in price. These firms required a synthetic indigo paste. They wanted to buy 100 tons of this material, and the best quotation they could get from a British manufacturer was 1s. 9¾d. per pound for a hundred-ton contract, or 1s. 9d. a pound for a 500-ton contract. They could buy the same thing on the Continent for 1s. 0½d. per pound. On the annual consumption of this particular material, this difference in price makes a difference to these eight firms alone of £84,000 a year. I invite the House to look at the matter from this point of view. Supposing the suggestion were made that the textile manufacturers of Lancashire should be placed in the position of having a duty, involving such a charge on a section of the community? The Committee must understand that the instance I have given must be multiplied many times over before we get the effect on the whole trade in that case; but supposing it were suggested that a duty should be placed on raw cotton coming into the country that would produce a charge corresponding to this, the whole country would be up in arms. Yet we are being handicapped in this way under the Dyestuffs Act.
I was one who voted for the Dyestuffs Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] No, I do not consider it was a shame, because the House must remember the arguments that were put forward then. I was in the cotton trade myself, and I know as well as anybody that we were sadly punished while the War was on, because we could not get decent dyes of any kind. We then declared we would never again allow ourselves to be placed in that position. I did come to a conclusion as to the wiser method of avoiding that position in the future. The argument had
been used that we must have the dye industry here, in order that, if ever we went to war again, we should have the necessary raw material for the provision of high explosives and so forth. That being so, why not keep these works going 1 Let them face competition, and if there is a loss at the end of the year, debit portion of that loss to the Army Estimates, portion to the Navy Estimates, and if the Air Force require any of these explosives, debit them with a corresponding amount. In that way the textile industry would be relieved from something which absolutely threatens its existence. We had the hon. and gallant Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) speaking here the other day and defending this Act. He gave his experience, but I would venture to say this: that for one person that you can find in the textile trade using colours and speaking in favour of this Act I will find you 50 who condemn it root and branch. This includes very great organisations like the Calico Printers' Association and the British Cotton and Wool Buyers. The great users say that this Act is hampering them and preventing them obtaining trade in foreign markets, thus retarding that recovery in our trade and commerce which we are all so anxious to see.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would join in the tribute to the President of the Board of Trade for the speech that he has delivered. I am very glad, speaking quite for myself, that he devoted a large or an important part of his speech to a discussion of the growth of tariffist restrictions in Europe and elsewhere. It is the purpose of every earnest and sincere person in the country at the present time, first of all, to try and do everything in their power to hasten the recovery of our trade, and, secondly, to promote the remunerative and healthy employment of our people. These are two great aims which we are keeping constantly before us. I was, therefore, glad that the President of the Board of Trade fastened upon this difficulty of the growth of tariff restrictions, so far giving us the opportunity of referring to the Government policy, because it seems to some of us that these restrictions are not likely to help the ends for which we are all working. I shall deal in the course of my observations mainly with this question.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade. I will put them under two heads —the first deals with the growth of tariffist restrictions in Europe, and the bearing of these restrictions upon our trade, and, secondly, I would inquire as to the proposed policy of some of our own Overseas Dominions and more particularly the proposed policy of the United States of America in the new tariff to which the right hon. Gentleman himself alluded. I shall briefly try to cover that ground, bearing mind that we have here a very important case, affecting a large part of the future of British industry and commerce. Let us take first this problem of European conditions. Very often the restrictions on our trade do not take the form of a tariff at all. They take the form of changed conditions which have come about in European industries very largely because of the circumstances following the War. I will give the House a convenient illustration.
A short time ago no doubt in consequence of the general paralysis in which a certain portion of European trade had fallen, important agreements were concluded between Dutch and German business houses. I would have nothing to say about these agreements if they had followed the course of trade and commerce of pre-War times, but it should be noticed —in the changed circumstances which we are now discussing—that these agreements provided that the Dutch concerns should have a controlling interest in the German undertakings, and they further provided that a certain amount of trade was to flow in definite channels in the future. It so happens that the arrangements affect markets to which we in Great Britain had access in former times. I entirely agree that it will be very very difficult indeed for the Board of Trade in this country, or this country as a whole, to interfere with arrangements of that kind, but we must remember that while the circumstances are changed at the present time, we have a European conference discussing economic conditions in the main, and presumably having regard to other influences acting adversely upon the free play of the commerce of the different nations. What I should
like to ask the President of the Board of Trade is whether this is a development in post-War experience in industry and commerce to which attention is being given by his Department, and whether there is anything we can do under the commercial treaties and trade agreements which we negotiate with other countries from time to time which will meet the difficulties which I have just described.
Important as that difficulty is it is not merely so important as the other difficulty of the tariffist restrictions growing up in Europe. I very often wonder whether more than a small percentage of the people of this country have any idea of the extraordinary change which even now, in what we should imagine to be a universal desire to restore trade, is taking place. We can find an illustration of the tendency in practically every European country. There is a pronounced tendency in what we may call the new countries of Europe, that is to say the countries which have been carved out of other countries, and which very suddenly, from another point of view, acquire the strongest nationalist spirit, and appear to be desirous of making themselves entirely self-sufficing, to build up as much protection in the shortest time as anyone of us in this Committee could well imagine. That is the danger of the situation. Let us take the older European countries. There was a discussion—to give one illustration—in the Swedish Chamber a few days ago in which a distinguished Swedish economist and publicist pleaded strongly that they should not increase their tariff barriers for two reasons; one being that the increase of tariff barriers was really ministering to the growth of trusts in Sweden itself, and the second reason being that that tendency was really hindering the recovery of European trade. That is an illustration from what we may call the older and recognised European countries.
If, on the other hand, we take a country like Spain, we are introduced to a difficulty of even more substantial character. A few weeks ago in this House I asked the President of the Board of Trade a question as to whether we were taking any steps to safeguard our interests in connection with Spain under the new commercial treaty which is being negotiated with that country. Part of the reply I received at the time
was that the matter was receiving attention, but other points in the reply were admittedly vague and indefinite. What has happened since that time? According to the most recent reports it appears to be quite impossible to get any definite decision from the Spanish Government. They are notorious in the matter of delay. There are 90 days within which the proposed new tariff falls to be ratified, or put through in a preliminary way, and these have now very nearly expired. An extension of that period is sought by those concerned in order that the claims of other countries may be considered. This is by no means an unimportant part of Europe from the British trade point of view, and not so much for what it is worth at the present day, as for what Spain, under a somewhat mare enlightened policy, might become. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to indicate what he is doing, or what his Department is doing, in this direction, and whether before the expiry of the 90 days, if it is allowed to expire without an extension of time, our British interests are being safeguarded.
These are convenient illustrations of the tendency which is at work, but I think, perhaps, one part of the argument which must impress many hon. Members of the Committee is the remarkable way in which many of our war-time Allies at the present time are pursuing a policy which is frankly in strong antagonism to the economic recovery of Europe as a whole. There was a discussion in the French Chamber a few weeks ago, not merely about existing tariff barriers, but about a proposal for a supplementary tax over and above the present, for the purpose of trying to deal with commodities which have the advantage of a depreciated exchange. Not only have we that tendency on the part of France, but we have also to take the barriers which France herself is making against her Allies, and in particular Belgium, and in relation to the goods which Belgium produces and which she is trying to export at the present time. So pronounced is that activity at the moment that only a week or two ago a Belgian writer complained very bitterly indeed of the fact that the tariff barriers of France against Belgian goods were being made higher week by week. We have
here from some of our Allies contributions of the very same kind as those tariffist restrictions which have been allowed to grow up in other parts, and which are undoubtedly at the root of a great deal of the economic misery of to-day.
6.0.P.M.
I would ask the indulgence of the Committee while referring to two other points of very great importance. We will pass from Europe for a moment to consider the policy which is being followed by, say, one of our own Dominions—New Zealand on the one side, and on the other by the United States of America. Beyond doubt it is perfectly plain, while in our trade and commerce we must try to drive some new bargains, or make some new arrangements within the Empire, we must also try to get the best arrangements possible with the United States. In the case of New Zealand, what actually is happening at the present day? It is rather odd that, making all allowance for the anti-dumping legislation which exists in the Colonies, they are actually having a discussion very similar to the discussion conducted in this House some weeks ago when the Safeguarding of Industries Bill was under consideration. They have two or three proposals which are quite plain and clear, and very important from the British point of view. First, they are going to take certain steps in regard to articles which are offered for sale in New Zealand below the domestic price of those articles in the country of origin. In the second place, they are going to take similar steps in regard to articles which are offered for sale in New Zealand below their cost of production in the country of origin. Thirdly —and this is more particularly the point on which I wish to concentrate—they are going to penalise articles coming into New Zealand—if this proposal be carried— which are also manufactured in New Zealand, but which go to that country with the advantage of some grant, some rebate, bounty, or concession from another part of the world. I cannot say at the moment what progress has been made with the proposals, or how they stand, but I was desirous of dealing with the tendency, even within the Empire, which raises very important considerations in British trade. Does any hon. Member for a moment suggest it is going to be an easy matter for New Zealand, or, for that matter, for this country, or any other
country, to determine accurately what is the cost of production, and what is meant by the cost of production in different countries. It is, however, more important to consider how New Zealand or any other country can come to any conclusion regarding the influence upon other countries of the rebate or concession or bounty; in short, how can these things, which are often invisible, be measured at all for the purposes of a scheme of this kind? I press these considerations because I feel that whatever we may do to improve the efficiency of industry in Great Britain, even if we get a large measure of industrial peace, even if we make industry far more productive, all that will be negatived in practice by the existence of such devices which are now rapidly growing up after the War, when it appears to me that not the maximum of restriction but the maximum of freedom is required.
The only other point I wish to raise is concerning the new tariff of the United States. The President of the Board of Trade alluded to the United States of America as a hopeful factor in future, although I think he made some reference to the possibilities of the tariff which is now under discussion. Within the past few days I have seen a summary of what are likely to be the effects of the proposed United States Tariff if we assume it is adopted in its present form. They say that in the aggregate it would mean that some 29 industries could charge, roughly speaking, anything above 3,000,000,000 dollars over the prices of those articles in foreign countries. That is a very definite statement made by experts. They go beyond that and make another statement, and they say that in the aggregate it amounts to an increase of at least 1,000,000,000 dollars for the tariff on these articles at present in force.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I would like to know how the hon. Member connects his argument with this Vote, because I fail to see any action which the President can take in regard to the matters to which he is alluding. The matters dealt with in this Debate must be within the discretion of the Board of Trade, and I do not quite follow the argument which the hon. Gentleman is using.

Mr. GRAHAM: May I point out, first of all, that your predecessor in the Chair allowed a general discussion on these points, and the President of the Board of Trade himself made his speech in such a way that we could give these illustrations, leading up to the contention that it was the duty of his Department in various trade and other agreements to protect our interests in Great Britain. That is exactly the point of the illustration that I was giving. I think it opens up very serious possibilities from the point of view of British trade. I cannot see how we can make any effective recovery unless we make our contribution in this country towards a maximum of freedom, and unless the Board of Trade can give even closer attention to these things. They seem to underlie everything that is being discussed at Genoa and touch very closely a point to which the President referred in regard to the recovery of the exchanges, and, from our point of view, unless these problems are met I feel that we may pass into a position of chronic unemployment for a very large section of the British people.

Sir WILLIAM BARTON: I should like to associate myself with the congratulations to the President of the Board of Trade upon his most interesting statement, and I feel that the Board of Trade in his charge is not only in capable, but in very accomplished hands. The survey which he made of the world's trade was one which I am sure will well repay reading to-morrow, and I hope it will be widely read. The part of it which specially impressed me was when he faced the fact, although he deplored the possibility of it, that possibly Europe outside of England is going to experience a period of trading and economic collapse. He tried to visualise what might be the position of this country under those circumstances. I think that was a very brave thing to do, and also a very desirable thing. I am sure his conclusions will carry hope and courage throughout the country, and that is especially what we need to get back our prosperity. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for all he said in that connection. He proceeded to say something which appealed to me in my business experience very strongly. I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade himself has actually and person-
ally been directly engaged in trade, but I have, and I am engaged in trade now. The conclusion that I have come to more strongly than any other is—and it is as applicable to individual businesses as it is to great combines or national trade— that if you want to succeed you must do the right thing, and maintain the quality and the character of your merchandise. I was very glad to hear the President of the Board of Trade sound that note throughout the country.
I now come to the point of criticism which has brought me to my feet. It is all the more necessary because I am quite sure of this, that even if you had a Government of all the talents, in an extremely difficult time like this, all new legislation is likely to be wrong in some respects, and it all needs criticism. My hon. Friend opposite spoke in a connection which I want to refer to, when he directed himself to the Dyestuffs Bill. If I may be pardoned for saying so, I think he was extraordinarily lucky to have got in that speech at all, because it struck me as a Second Reading speech more appropriate to the production of a new Dyestuffs Bill. I want to confine myself, as far as I can, to what I believe to be in order, and that is the administration of this Bill, a Measure which I do not like, which I believe to be injurious, and in regard to which I do not accept the obiter dicta of my hon. Friend. His pessimism in regard to the capacity of chemists and chemical devolpment in this country has astonished me. But we are more or less confined to dealing with the administration of the Board, and I want to speak for a moment or two with regard to the administration of the Dyestuffs Act. As we all know, it proceeds on the line of prohibition, with licences for special cases. When the Bill was passing through this House, and it was a very drastic Bill, I think it was not altered in one sentence or comma between the Bill and the Act. I will state what was going on concurrently with the passing of the Bill. In Manchester, the great centre of users of colouring matters in the textile industry, there was what is known as the Colour Users' Association, and they were in touch with the Government and were led to believe that they had come to an arrangement with the Government as to how this Bill should be administered.
The then Chairman of the Association (Mr. Clay), a very able and vigorous man, came to this arrangement, or at any rate he told the colour users that this was the arrangement he had come to with the Government, that, in the first place, on this Licensing Committee there would be a majority of colour users. In the second place, the arrangement was that in the event of a difference of opinion, whether as to quality, or price, or both, as between the user and the producer, the onus of proof would be on the producer. That having been arranged, to the very general surprise of all the people interested, Mr. Clay ceased to be Chairman of the Colour Users' Association, and he became a director of the Dyestuffs Corporation, and this, to me, was a guarantee of good faith, on both sides. Whatever may be the emoluments of a directorship of this company, to take up this position was undoubtedly a great sacrifice financially. I now learn that Mr. Clay has resigned the directorship of the British Dyestuffs Corporation. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] At any rate, I was informed of that fact in Manchester on Friday, and when I learned that this Debate was coming on, I wrote to Manchester on this point and asked for a wire confirming the information I had received from what I believed to be a thoroughly credible source, and I am informed to-day by wire that it was true. If, however, it is not true, I shall be very glad, indeed. If it be true that he has resigned, I should like to know whether it has anything to do with the administration of the Act.
I shall now produce one out of many cases which I think will show that the Act is not being administered in accordance with the arrangement which was come to. I quite realise that the Licensing Committee has a job in hand of infinite difficulty, and I think it is scarcely possible to administer licensing in such a way as would give satisfaction to everybody. When this Bill was passing through the House I thought I could foresee, and I am sure anybody who thought about the subject at all must have foreseen, that with a prohibition act in operation what Germany would probably do would be with regard to things which we made in this country, she would sell them cheaper, and the things for which we had to go to Germany she would sell dear. It is no use denouncing anyone for that, because
it is the world practice in commerce. It is what we did when we were monopolists in coal, and I felt sure that that was what was likely to happen. On examining cases, however, so far as I have been able, I find that it has not quite turned out to be so. Those commodities for which we have to go to Germany, and which she knows we cannot make here, she has, undoubtedly, made extremely dear; but, to my intense surprise, for those commodities which we are, or say we are, making equally well here, she is still asking very big prices, and I am extremely puzzled to know the grounds on which many licences are being refused. I know that the Act is a prohibition Act, and that the whole intention was to build up a dyestuffs industry by prohibiting foreign imports; but I cannot imagine that the Board of Trade can be regardless of the fact that we have a very great export trade at stake. The right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that the restoration of our foreign trade was vital to the life of the nation, and he knows quite well that, of our whole exports, something like one-third consists of cotton goods, and of those cotton goods certainly 75 per cent, are concerned in this question of colouring matter.
I will give an instance of an application for a licence. It is an instance which came to me without my asking for it. I do not know whether it will get me into favour with the right hon. Gentleman if I tell him what has been my attitude towards this Act, ever since it was passed. In cases in which I am an interested person, I have said to the managers, "This is the law of the land. This is an Act which has been passed by Parliament, and, so far as you can, you must use British colours. There must be no applications for licences unless, within the meaning of what has been said and done in Parliament, you can with a clear conscience press for those licences." Having said that, I asked for no cases, and the cases which I have got are cases which have been pressed upon me. This particular one comes from a firm in my own constituency, and, I think, is a clear test case which fully illustrates the position. This firm, curiously enough, is a firm which largely uses British dyestuffs, and, although I do not know the political colour of the partners in it, I have a very strong suspicion that it is not my
political colour. I have a strong belief that, while I am a doctrinaire Free Trader, these gentlemen are not. They wanted a particular red, and they had a colour supplied by the British Dyestuffs Corporation. They tried it, and found that it would not answer their purpose. It failed in two ways. In the first place, it could not produce quite the shade that was asked for, and, in the second place— and this is extraordinarily important—it could not produce a colour which was fast to washing and fast to chlorine, tests which are absolutely necessary in the case of goods that are to go to the East. In these circumstances they applied for a licence and the Licensing Committee referred them to one of the colours of the British Dyestuffs Corporation. They replied:
We have had and still have in our possession some of the competitive product which you suggest, and which, of course, is sold only, up to the present, in paste form. We find that this latter colour is not nearly so pure, and rich in tone as the Algol red, whilst its properties as regards fastness are also not quite so good.
Algol G 5 Red was the red for which they applied. Later on in their letter, they call attention to the fact that this Algol Red is only 5s. a pound, whilst the inferior colour of the British Dyestuffs Corporation is 16s 3d. a pound. I at once tried to find out whether this price of 5s. a pound is an uneconomic price which the Germans have set up in order to undermine what the British Dyestuffs people are doing; because, if that could be proved in this or any other case, I, as a Free Trader, should rule out the commodity altogether. Undoubtedly Free Trade has always recognised that defence is more than opulence, and if a country, for ulterior motives, were systematically selling a commodity at an uneconomic price, there is nothing in Free Trade which prevents you from doing all you can to break down any such attempt. Therefore, when I was told about this price of 5s. a pound for the German colour, I set myself at once to find out what had been its pre-War price. It was a colour which was well known and had been used for many years, and I got invoices to prove that its pre-War price had been 1s. 0¾d. per pound, and that this price of 5s. a pound which is now asked by Germany has been their price for 12 months. We are, therefore, confronted with this position. A dyer has to produce
a certain colour. On the one hand he can obtain by purchase from Germany the necessary colour at 5s. per pound, and produce the shade and fastness that he requires. On the other hand, he is told by the Licensing Committee that they will not give him a licence, and they refer him to a colour at 16s. 3d. per pound which is not equally good for his purpose. They again put their case to the Licensing Committee, and I will now read the last answer which they received:
With reference to your letter, I am directed by the Dyestuffs Advisory Licensing Committee to state that, if it is desired to press your application for a licence in respect of this product on the ground of the difference in price between this material and Past G Red, it will be necessary for you to furnish particulars showing that such difference places you in an unduly disadvantageous competitive position, having regard to the total costs of production of the goods into which this particular dyestuff enters.
It will be seen that this reply ignores altogether the matter of quality, which, in my judgment, is the more important point of the two, and it says that, if these dyers desire, on price grounds, to pursue their attempt to get a licence, they must prove that the commodity would be placed in an unduly disadvantageous competitive position having regard to the total costs of production of the goods into which this particular dyestuff enters. I put down a question the other day, and I tried to explain, although I had not a very good opportunity of doing so during Question and Answer, that this is a demand with which, ordinarily speaking, the dyer cannot comply. I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman is acquainted with the nature of the cotton industry. It is a highly specialised industry. Different men carry on different parts of it, and they work in watertight compartments and know very little about the business of those who carry on other sections of the industry. I can remember, 40 years ago, when the case was different. When I was a lad you got the raw cotton, spun it, wove it, dyed, printed, and finished it, and packed it and sent it abroad and sold it abroad, all under one concern. To-day, the general way of carrying on the trade is that every one of these sections is in a watertight compartment, and I say unhesitatingly that the ordinary dyer would not know how to begin to get this information which is made a qualification for
his getting a licence. Not only so, but the sources from which he could get the information would be very chary of giving it to him. He would have to go to the persons from whom he obtained the cloth, and ask them for information about the quality and price of their cloth, and they would at once say, "That is our business, not yours. Your business is to dye the cloth, our business is to sell it, and we are not going to tell you." I am quite sure such a man would not get the information; there are plenty of other cases in which it would not be possible to get it.
Again, may I refer to a common course of procedure in this industry? A dyer or a calico printer cannot go on from year to year producing the same thing. He has to set apart every year a certain amount of his machinery for what is called sampling. He has to try new colours, new patterns, and new finishes, and the time when he is doing that is the very time when he may want a colour that he has used years ago. History has a way of repeating itself in these things. The new colour of this year, to a man who has been watching it for many years, is the old colour of 10 years ago, and he has to get that colour. But he could not tell, and no man could tell, what would be the cost of production or the competitive position of the article in which that colour was to be embodied. This demand is an impracticable demand, and one which could not possibly be fulfilled. I know it is of no use coming to the House of Commons and denouncing the Dye-stuffs Act. The House passed it, and I think that during this Session, on a Motion for its repeal, the House con firmed it. It is therefore no use my wasting the time of the Committee on that, but I think I am entitled to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, as being in some sense responsible to the trade of the country, to take into consideration the great difficulty of this system of prohibition and licensing, and to ask whether some arrangement could not be come to. In the first place, so far as quality is concerned, every dyer must have access to the best, or we cannot maintain our trade, and in these circumstances I should say that the responsibility undoubtedly rests with the producer of proving that he is producing the right quality. I should say that there can be no exception
to that, and that such a rule ought to be made by the Board of Trade. In the matter of price, in the ease which I have mentioned, a colour was offered from abroad at 5s., and in this country at 16s. 3d. I have got a thoroughly capable chemist, undoubtedly one of the best men in the country, to dye for me from both of these colours, using the same quantity in each case. Having dyed the same quantity with each, he reported to me that the colour cost of dyeing with the British dyestuff had been 106s., as compared with 37s. in the case of the German.
As I have said, if it could be shown that the German or any other foreign price is an uneconomic price, with a view to destroying any portion of our trade, there is no trade risk that I would not run to fight it. But here you have a case of a price which is not an uneconomic price. At 5s. a 1b. this colour can be, and is being produced in Germany at a good profit. I agree that under this Bill there are grounds for refusing a licence on grounds of price. It is a question of degree. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take into consideration whether he could not establish some percentage, say, 15, 20, 30 or 40 per cent., within which the home producers must produce in order to retain their trade. It would be a good thing for them if they knew they must at least come within some fixed percentage of the foreign price, and it would be a great incentive to them. The possibility of being able to refuse a licence and charge a price three and a-half times the foreign price places you in a position of simply artificially fostering an industry which, immediately this dangerous protection is withdrawn, will crumble and fall to the ground. That is not what we want, because, after all, it is common ground in this House that we want to build up and maintain a dyestuffs industry. We realised that during the War there was a period of very great anxiety. We realised that in the national interest it is essential that we should have a small army of young chemists, and that we should have opportunities of applying their chemical knowledge. That is common ground with us all. What we want to get at is the most practical and sensible way of applying that consistently with
the carrying on of a great export trade, which the right hon. Gentleman has told us is the life of the nation.

Mr. WOOLCOCK: The Committee will probably expect me to say a word or two on this subject, as I am the only Member who served on the two Committees which have been set up under the Dyestuffs Act, which had the duty placed upon them of advising the President of the Board of Trade on the one side whether or not a licence could be granted, and on the other with regard to the development of the dye-stuffs industry. I have listened with great interest to the extraordinarily fair, almost dangerously fair, manner in which my hon. Friend (Sir W. Barton) has dealt with this subject. It seems to me that it is always jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day. We have been told on the one hand that subsidy is the only method of dealing with a question of this kind. I rather thought we had a sufficient taste of what subsidy means during the War. I rather thought we were convinced that subsidising an industry was immediately to run up the cost of running that industry. With regard to the system of prohibition and licences, that I have seldom heard attacked in such vehement terms. My own judgment is that where you have a particular industry which is suffering, probably prohibition, with licences, if you must have some form of protection, is better than anything else, but, on the other hand, I am told that a tariff is absolutely wrong. That is the plan the Government has adopted in the Safeguarding of Industries Act. It is therefore difficult to know exactly what the hon. Members would advise in a case of this kind, but whatever their advice would be, I should be prepared to defend, not formally, as a member of the Licensing Committee, but wholeheartedly, the action of that Committee. There is so much misrepresentation and misunderstanding, even on the part of my hon. Friend, that if he of all men should fall into the error which he has fallen into, men who know so much less about it than he does can be excused for not really understanding the propaganda which has been placed in their hands, and which has misled him so seriously.
What is the work really of the Licensing Committee 1 It has been at work now for 15 months. It has had to consider over 5,000 applications for
licences, and each application may consist of three, four or more different dyes. The Committee has had that work and has got through it. There has been a fair amount of criticism. There have been times when we have been very much slower than we should like to have been if we had had the facilities for going faster, and there have been times when we have gone very much slower than we should have done if the applicants had given us particulars which would have enabled us to come to a rapid judgment on the subject, or if, indeed, instead of the ease being made to us that a particular red colour differs in shade from that put as an equivalent and the Committee being asked to determine whether the shade was equal, we had been told right away that the question was one of price and not of colour. The Licensing Committee, therefore, have not only to judge as well as they can from what the applicant says, but sometimes from what the applicant does not say as to the real grounds on which the application is made. Out of those 5,000 applications which have been dealt with, hon. Members will be surprised to know, in view of what has been said to-day, that the Committee has recommended the granting of licences for 3,500,000 1bs. of dyes.

Mr. KILEY: How many of the applications were granted?

Mr. WOOLCOCK: If you will forgive me telling you exactly how many were granted out of the 5,000, may I tell the Committee that the amount granted is as 3,500,000 lbs. to 2,500,000 lbs. refused. If my hon. Friend would like it in terms of values, roughly, one and a third million pounds sterling have been granted and £500,000 worth only refused. That hardly bears out the impression the Committee has gathered as to the work of the Licensing Committee. The Committee is there doing its duty whenever a case is proved, and as a matter of fact has granted licenses for much more dyestuff than it has refused. There are two reasons which can be adduced for an application for a licence. The first is that a dyestuff of the particular quality is not being made in this country, and the second is that the difference in price between a foreign and a British dye is such that it would place the consumer in an unduly disadvantageous competitive position. My hon. Friend is quite wrong,
unintentionally, of course, in what he told the Committee a few moments ago with regard to the onus of proof. He referred to the agreement made by Mr. Vernon Clay, who was then the chairman of the Colour Users' Association, a name well-known to the House and very highly respected. My latest information is that he is still a director of the British Dye-stuffs' Corporation, although he is not occupying exactly the position on the managing committee of directors that he was.

Sir W. BARTON: Is it untrue that he has resigned?

Mr. WOOLCOCK: I asked that question myself of a person on whose veracity I can rely and I believe it is untrue.

Sir W. BARTON: My source is reliable too.

Mr. WOOLCOCK: Apparently my hon. Friend and I go to sources which are reliable in different ways. The onus of proof in the case of a dyestuff which turns on the quality of the dyestuff is put on and accepted by the British maker.

Sir W. BARTON: That is what I said.

Mr. WOOLCOCK: That is true, but my hon. Friend did not give us the whole story. He did not tell us, for example, that the consumer accepted in the early days of the Dyestuffs Act exactly the proof that he was placed in an unduly disadvantageous competitive position. The language my hon. Friend read out with such gusto from the official letter he read is identically the language in which that agreement was arrived at. The representatives of the Colour Users' Association accepted that onus of proof and have, as far as I know, up till my hon. Friend repudiated it, continued to accept it—at least the whole of their representatives on the Licensing Committee have always admitted that the onus of proof with regard to price was placed upon the colour user.

Sir W. BARTON: Can my hon. Friend give a single instance of a dyer or a printer who was able to give him that information?

Mr. WOOLCOCK: No, I am not a printer. I know nothing actually about dyeing. All I know is that the Chairman of the Colour Users' Association, and those colour users who represent my hon. Friend and others on the Licensing Com-
mittee, accepted that onus of proof. I cannot think for a moment they would have accepted it unless they felt they were in some way able to prove a case of that kind, and in any case if they cannot prove it the Committee might well ask who can?

Mr. FRANCE: Have they ever done so?

Mr. WOOLCOCK: Not to my knowledge yet, but if any hon. Member was placed in an unduly disadvantageous position, surely it is he who would bring forward the proof of that, and he would not turn round to someone else to prove that he was placed in such a position.

Mr. T. SHAW: If you remember the discussions that took place in the House, the people who actually manufacture the colours were never given a chance of being heard at all, and they alone know what the goods cost.

Mr. WOOLCOCK: Far be it from me to say anything with regard to the Colour Users' Association. I understood the Colour Users' Association pretty thoroughly represented the colour users of the country.

Mr. SHAW: May I point out that the colour users merely put the colour on the goods and do not make them at all.

Mr. WOOLCOCK: I should like to say a word as to the composition of the Committee. I do not think any hon. Member present will think for a moment that this is a Committee on which the colour users themselves are in a majority. The Act is criticised from several points of view. It is being criticised by colour users, or a section of them, although the actual administration is in the hands of a Committee consisting of five colour users, three dyestuff makers and three independent persons. Will the Committee think what that means. It means that if the five colour users have a case to bring before that Committee, they have only to convince one out of the three independent members and they have a majority on the Licensing Committee, and can grant or refuse or do anything they like. On the other hand, the dyestuff maker has to convince the whole of the three independent persons before he can get a majority to do anything on that Licensing Committee. This House, and the Committee upstairs, considered that a very fair arrangement. They considered that
it safeguarded the colour user, and I think it does. The whole of the criticism which we hear passed on the Licensing Committee amounts to this, that with a majority of members on that Committee there is still difficulty in persuading certain colour users that the Committee is not carrying out its functions in a proper way. We have been handicapped by lack of evidence and by not having a ready-made laboratory in which experiments could be carried out.
Our criticism, as a rule, has come from three quarters—three very proper quarters. Some people who criticise the Dyestuffs Act do so from a purely political point of view. We all understand that political point of view, but one remembers all that has gone before and holds to one's opinion that something rather special had to be done in rather special circumstances. Then there are others whose criticism I cannot for the life of me understand, seeing that they have a majority on the Committee. There is a further class, which consists of agents of German dyestuffs firms, who are in this country, and other agents whose business, very properly, is to attempt to sell German dyestuffs and Swiss dyestuffs. The Committee will hardly be surprised to learn that there is very considerable opposition by these gentlemen. They have carried on in this country a very excellent business for many years; they have earned their living by it; but Parliament having decided that it will establish here a dye-stuffs industry, their occupation is gone to a certain extent, and they are very badly upset. They find sympathy, of course, among all those who, for various reasons, or simply for political reasons alone, are opposed to this course. There is ready access in the way of letters to the Papers or Debates in this House, and I do not think that the Committee should take too seriously the criticisms of the Act which come from a quarter of that kind. They are quite understandable. It would not be human for a body of men who are losing their business if they did not make some effort to retain their position. Notwithstanding, I do not think we should place too much reliance on what is said from that quarter.
I want to say a few words in regard to the question of price. My hon. Friend has dealt with the question of price some-
what fully. I cannot answer, offhand, the questions he has put to me. I said that there were 5,000 licences, but I do not carry all the particulars in my head. We are sometimes told, as he told us, that if you put, say, 20 per cent, on the German price, the colour user should be willing to pay 20 per cent, more than he paid to the German, as it is highly important that we should have the dye-stuffs industry here. Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that? Imagine for one moment anybody suggesting that you can take the German price, to-day's German price, and put 20 per cent, on it. What would be the effect to-morrow? The effect to-morrow would be absolutely instantaneous. The German price of today would be lowered 20 per cent., and if you put 20 per cent, on that lowered German price, it would be lowered again. This is not a question where it is possible to take the present-day prices in relation to anything you may desire to do in establishing this industry.

Sir W. BARTON: I quoted the specific price, and I said it has not altered for 12 months. The pre-War price was 1s. 0¾d.

Mr. W00LC0CK: I do not carry prices like that in my mind. I am dealing with a few sentences later in the hon. Member's speech, when he said that the British price should come within 20 per cent, of the foreign price. What is 20 per cent, of the foreign price? It is absolutely irrational to suggest for a moment that you can do anything in the way of a tariff, or make any relations between the presnt-day British price and the present-day German price.

Sir W. BARTON: I said 20, 30, or 40 per cent, on some basic price.

Mr. WOOLCOCK: You cannot get a basis on which to put 20 per cent. It is impossible to put it on the present day German price, or the present day English price. What is the position in regard to price? The hon. Member has quoted one case. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to quote another. There is a particular colour, which is called Solway blue black, which the colour users of the country asked the dye makers to make here. The dye makers went to the colour users and said: "What is the next colour you want us to make?" and they were asked to make this blue black. They made it. They put down £50,000 or
£60,000 worth of capital in order to make it. The German price at that moment was 17s. 6d. At the end of the second year, when the research work was over— the Germans, of course, knew about the research work—the price fell to 15s. The dye makers were immediately ready to cut down the price, and they offered it to the colour users at 14s. 6d. The German price fell to 11s. 6d. at once. We were anxious in every way possible to make it as easy for the colour user as we could, and the British price was reduced to 9s. 9d. This could bear no relation whatever to the cost of manufacture, because there was over £50,000 sunk in plant. The total production that the country requires is only 50 tons a year, and the total amount which the users have taken up to the present is 16 cwt. Therefore, the Committee will see that there is no ordinary commercial relation between the price which the dye makers came down to, in order to assist the consumer, and ordinary commercial affairs. What is the result? The German price to-day is 6s. 8d. It can be 4s. to-morrow. They would have no difficulty if it came down to 2s. It simply has no relation, because of the exchange and the subventions, etc., to ordinary commercial rates, and it is impossible to consider any German price at all. It can be anything that the German cares to make it.
My hon. Friend has spoken about the difference in price. It seems to me that that is a double-edged weapon. If you take any dyestuffs, the equivalent of which is being made in this country, you will find that the German is selling in this country on the average at one-and-a-half times the pro-War price. Let us take the pre-War price, which is a thing you can got at, and we shall find that the Gorman price for any colour which is being made in this country is on the average, if you take 100 colours, about one-and-a-half to one-and-three-quarters the pre-War German price. Take a set of colours which Germany and Switzerland are both making, and which we are not ready to make. The effect is that the increased cost over the pre-War price is not one-and-three-quarters, but it is somewhere round about four times the pre-War German price. Take a colour which neither Switzerland nor this country is making, and over a reasonably large range you will find that, as com pared with the pre-War German price,
the colour user is being charged in this country about seven times the pre-War German price, and he has to pay it.
If the colour user of this country allows the British dyestuffs industry to be wiped out, is it not reasonable to suppose, and is there anything to the contrary that can be urged, that the effect will be exactly the same as in former years, and that as you close down works after works you will find that, as each colour goes out of production in this country, the price of that colour goes up, and the textile industry of this country is going to be in a position which few people would care to contemplate.

Mr. T. SHAW: It cannot be any worse than it is.

Mr. WOOLCOCK: My hon. Friend referred to the question of indigo. That is, of course, a point which is bound up entirely with the question of price. He told the House that £84,000 is the difference in price between the German price and the British price on 100 tons. Great Britain has been through the experience of having to fight the Germans in regard to the production of alizarine colours in this country, and ultimately the German price was broken, and the industry was established here. Our aim in the Development Committee and the Licensing Committee is quite simple. We believe that in the interests of national safety you have to establish a synthetic colour industry here. We believe that that industry has to be established at the lowest possible cost to the colour users who have to use the colours produced by the industry. We believe that if we can have the co-operation of the colour users—we have the co-operation of the majority of them, and it is only a very few, an influential few, I admit, who are at the moment not cooperating—and the sympathetic assistance of this House, we shall ultimately establish in this country a weapon which will not only be a national insurance in time of war, but a commercial insurance for the colour-using industry of this country.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. G. TERRELL: I desire to associate myself with the congratulations which have been addressed to the President of the Board of Trade on the very admirable speech he made to the Committee this
afternoon. I am sure it will be most helpful because in a great many industries people have been wondering whether the bed-rock price of production has been reached, and the authoritative statement that in his judgment things were either at bottom or nearly at bottom will, I believe, stimulate trade, and help us to recover our old prosperity. I also want to say a word or two in regard to the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and in particular to call attention to the delay which has occurred in putting that Act into operation. I refer in particular to Part II. The Act was on the Statute Book and become operative on the 1st October of last year. The first Committee reported in favour of one branch of industry _ and their Report was handed to the Board of Trade last January. Still no action has been taken to give effect to that Report. Considering that the Act is only a short-term Act—I think the period is three or four years—here are nearly eight months gone and nothing has been done. I think in regard to the particular industry to which that Report relates that it was very amply proved that there is great unemployment in that industry, that the industry is in a depressed condition, and that it is a matter of great urgency that steps should be taken to enforce the Act. I do hope my right hon. Friend will speed things up, and, in particular, I am most anxious that he should simplify the procedure under this most complicated Act. The procedure is difficult, and it is made doubly difficult by the class of Committee which is appointed. I am told—of course, unofficially—that there is too much debate on these Committees, that on each of them there are Free Traders and members who have views on Protection, and that a great deal of the time is taken up with the old debate of Free Trade versus Protection. That is not the way to get to business, and if this Act is to be administered, then instead of having two political parties represented on the Committee it would be very much better to have a Committee, if you can get it, of absolutely independent people.

Dr. MURRAY: Diehards!

Mr. TERRELL: People who are not committed in regard to Free Trade or Protection, Diehards or anyone. I do not care who is on the Committee as long as the work is done quickly,
and done well. I should like to refer to the good humoured banter which the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) used in moving his Motion. He referred generally to the policy of this Act, and deplored the circumstance that it was on the Statute Book. At any rate, there was this good point. During the passage of that Act through this House it was one of the standing complaints on these Benches that the moment that Act was put on the Statute Book the price of everything to the consumer would be increased by the amount of the duty or probably more which was imposed on the article. At any rate, I am glad to hear to-day from my hon. Friend's speech that that line of argument has been dropped. Hardly one of the hon. Members on those Benches escaped making that charge against the Bill, and then we were told that trusts would grow up, and that the Act would be exploited by trusts. That has been dropped. The Bill is being administered as regards Part I, but still there are no trusts or any evidence that the price of the goods has been increased by a single penny-piece. That is all to the good. Another class of statement which is directed to the prejudice of Part II, the fabric glove industry, was referred to, and it was stated that if you impose this duty on German fabric gloves you would not only hit Germany, but you will hit the Lancashire trade. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the report of the proceedings before the Committee. As far as I know, that report has never been published. We cannot even get the report of the Committee, let alone the report of the evidence taken. But though that statement has been made in this House, and repeated all over the country, particularly in the Free Trade Press, there is no evidence of anything of the sort. I am perfectly confident in my own mind that instead of injuring Lancashire you will help Lancashire, that this Act will not hurt any industry in this country, but will be to the benefit and interest of trade as a whole, and, particularly, that if it is properly enforced it will greatly tend to the relief of the present unemployment. I do trust that the President of the Board of Trade will speed up the operation of this Act, and that he will take steps to put it into operation in the cases where the Committees have reported that the duty should be imposed.

Major-General SEELY: I am exceedingly sorry to intervene on a different subject, but this is the only opportunity on which we can appeal to the President of the Board of Trade with regard to a matter which is of vital importance to the trading community, and to the country as a whole. I am not going to talk about wrecked industries, but about wrecked ships, and to appeal to the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the classes of wrecks that strew our coasts, with consequent danger to the fishing community, to lifeboats, and to the people who live on the sea coast. A large number of these wrecks are, of course, due to the German submarine campaign, and their total number must be enormous. The numbers in the place I know best, round about the Needles Channel and the approaches to the great port of Southampton, are very large. There are three of very grave and real danger to navigation. Outside, there is another wreck which is causing extreme damage to the fishing and danger to the lifeboats, while all along the coast even as far out as the centre of Start Bay, there are wrecks of real danger either to the navigation of big vessels, on which there is a special Vote in this House, or of danger to the fishing vessels, or of danger to the lifeboats, or a source of damage to the locality. I understand that since I last raised the matter in this House something has been done, and a few thousand pounds have been spent in the destruction of wrecks. But nothing like enough has been done. The actual wrecks to which I have referred have not been touched, though they have been there since before the close of the War. When I inform the Committee that many ships are unable to use the Channel which is one of the most important, leading up to one of the most important ports of the United Kingdom, because the wrecks hare not been removed, and these ships are obliged to take a longer course involving a considerable additional expense on each voyage, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will turn his attention to the matter, even in the midst of his very important duties.
I have said that there are four classes of vessels. There are those which Trinity House are supposed, under the direction of the President of the Board of Trade, to remove, and which are a danger to navigation. That has not been done.
The approaches to our harbours are strewn with wrecks which are causing damage, although the fear of damage is even more important because ships are diverted owing to fear of the wrecks. The second class of vessels are those which are a danger to the lifeboats. They are close in shore, or are placed where big ships do not approach, but where the lifeboats frequently have to go out. There are many of these, and I could give a list of them if I did not wish to avoid detaining the House. There is the third class, which is a danger to fishing vessels, and, as I am reminded, to the nets, with a consequent great loss to the fishing people. The fourth class of wrecks are those which are full of various kinds of cargoes, oils and things, which ooze out on to the beach, killing the fish and, in the case of watering-places, making it impossible for the inhabitants to indulge in sea-bathing, or to put a boat on the beach without it being covered in oil. If the total damage caused by the laxity of the authorities in not removing these wrecks were to be added up it could safely be put at tens of thousands of pounds a year. As one who thinks that my right hon. Friend has done extraordinarily well in his office, I would urge him not to run the risk of spoiling so good a record by seeing some great vessel, in stormy and foggy weather, wrecked at the cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds and several hundreds of lives just because these wrecks have not been destroyed. I hope the Committee will agree that this is a matter of immense importance to the seafaring community, and that I have been right in urging the President of the Board of Trade to turn his special attention to this matter with a view to something being done in the future.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLEY: I am sure the House will have appreciated fully the peculiarly lucid statement of the President of the Board of Trade. I think it is good that the House should be informed accurately on the points with which he is qualified to deal from his experience. Representing, as I do, a constituency which is very closely associated with the textile trade, I feel particularly grateful that the allegations with regard to this Act which are so freely put about should have been dealt
with authoritatively. With regard to the Act itself, there are many of us, myself included, who are in no sympathy with Part II, but who, notwithstanding that, realise that there may be considerations which justify the overriding of our principles with regard to dyestuffs. There is a matter I would like to bring before the Committee on this one opportunity we have of raising these matters, and I think I shall be permitted to do so as one who has recently returned from Italy, Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, and Germany, who has been in close touch with business and finance in all those countries, and who has consequently had rather exceptional opportunities of seeing the exact position at close quarters of some of the difficulties with which British trade is faced at the present moment. It is not unwise to refer to some of the difficulties and hindrances which exist at the present moment and particularly to explore certain reasons why trade, which formerly came to this country, is at the present moment going elsewhere. I think, with that object in view, one may call attention to the question of pre-War debts. This is a matter which has already caused great hardship in the case of many firms, who desire to bring employment to their workpeople in this country, but who, through the tardiness of the settlement of these matters, have been obliged to forgo some of the trade which they could otherwise have brought. The Committee will agree that those who in the past have hazarded their capital should, as far as is possible, receive generous support from the Government of this country. This is a matter to which I have on more than one occasion drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I should like to say how much I appreciate the sympathetic way in which he has always dealt with it.
The losses on the part of the textile trade during the past 18 months have necessitated their regarding this as a matter of urgency. A further reason might be added, namely, that, as the Committee are aware, the moratorium with regard to pre-War bills terminates on the 15th August. This question of pre-War debts is one which involves many technicalities, and it would not be appropriate that the time of the Committee should be taken up in dealing with any of the details. The pre-War debts of Germany, Czecho-Slovakia,
Austria and Poland are primarily those with which the textile industry are concerned, and it is on their behalf that I raise this matter. There are so many technicalities that it would be wearisome to the Committee to deal with them, but I might perhaps select the Polish pre-War debts in particular, because here there is no question, and I can speak from recent experience, having been out there. I have been in close contact with firms on the Continent whose trade, which formerly came to this country, has now been lost to us because of the inability of the Polish pre-War debtors to pay any portion of their debts, which action alone would justify the British firms in restarting trade on any substantial scale. Those pre-War debtors, through force of circumstances and not on any dishonourable grounds, have selected other firms, with whom they had no pro-War business, from whence to obtain their supplies.
The question of receipts given by the Germans for any requisition of property in Poland is of vital importance to her textile trade. If the Committee were to devote a little sympathy to one industry in particular, it would, indeed, feel that it was due to the textile trade in Poland. There they carried on a trade requiring big sums of money, of which a large part was necessarily locked up in raw and semi-manufactured materials. Those have all been requisitioned by the Germans, and no payments have been made at all for them. In addition, these same firms have lost all the ready cash they had in the Russian banks. Let the Committee picture the condition of those people, and particularly those in the city of Lodz, where there are 400,000 inhabitants all dependent on the textile trade and desirous of getting back to work. Because British textile firms feel that a distinct hardship exists and that discrimination has been made, I particularly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see that the weight of the British Government and the Department which deals with international questions of honouring receipts given to firms may be enlisted, so that some correction of this real hardship shall be made. The point which the textile firms in this country make is that those receipts which are in existence, which are obligations to be honoured as much as any others, should have priority over reparation schemes, and should be met, so that the
Polish pre-War debtors, actuated as they are by good faith, should be put in a position to recover those debts, which would enable them to pay their own debts.
With that brief reference to the technicalities of the case I will leave that particular feature of it. I should like, however, to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that Poland has a population to-day of 30,000,000 people. They are industrious, hard-working and, in my confident belief—obtained from having spoken to business men, bankers, and Ministers there—they have pacific intentions, and are unjustifiably misrepresented as adopting an aggressive, bellicose and imperialistic attitude. They have a trade which has a possibility of attaining vast proportions which it lies open to this country to negotiate after having re-established to some extent pre-War connections. Added to this, the establishment of new connections will lay the foundations for great employment in this country by our using Poland as a medium through which Russia must inevitably be reconstructed. There is in that way a great field for British industry.
May I refer also to the Austrian pre-War debts? Here the matter is on a rather different footing. We ought to remember that Poland is an Allied country, while Austria is a late enemy country. In Austria we have this clearing house system. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman again to give this matter his consideration, because the belief exists in well-informed quarters—in this matter I deal more particularly with the accepting houses in the City of London rather than with the textile firms of Lancashire and Yorkshire—that he could accelerate the liquidation of these debts in a- very substantial way were he to apply to the British debts the same expeditious system as has been adopted by the French. They have their clearing house, but they have succeeded in a similar time in liquidating an infinitely larger proportion of debts than the 12½ per cent, alleged to be the maximum by the British clearing house. May I put to the Committee two instances of the apparent absurdity of the existing system? Take the case of an Austrian pre-War debtor who has in the hands of a British pre-War creditor a substantial I sum of money, much in excess of what is
needed to liquidate the debt to the firm in this country which holds it. He is not permitted to utilise the balance of this fund in liquidating debts with other firms in this country which he may have, but the balance ha-s to be paid into a general pool, thus immeasurably retarding the acceleration of the whole thing. I think that is a case in which the stereotyped procedure need not be followed and that a little laxity would affect a much more rapid liquidation.
Again, take the case of a British firm which may have a substantial balance in hand of money owing to an Austrian creditor and at the same time may have debts owing to them from that Austrian debtor. It is not permitted to set one debt off against the other. I think I am justified, on behalf of those who are suffering in the re-establishment of their pre-War trade in appealing to the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to reconsider his previous decision and to set up some competent business system, such as has been suggested to him more than once, in order to effect a rapid liquidation of these debts. I would like to support that by an expression of the extent to which I was personally impressed in Vienna when speaking with bankers, and particularly with one who is a leading authority at the present moment. While the casual visitor to Vienna cannot see any apparent difference in the city at the present moment, compared with the pre-War position, and certainly nothing to justify the claim that Austria is entitled to relief credits as against, say, Poland and Rumania, yet if the allegation is true that the withholding of relief credits would probably cause the fall of the Austrian Government, that no other Government could be put in its place, and that such a result would be followed by a complete collapse of the banking system of Austria, with a wider application through Austria to South-eastern Europe; and admitting that Austria is recovering her old dominant position as the distributing centre for Southern Europe, then, in the interests of British trade, possibly the granting of these relief credits would be justified. If that is so, then much more so is the rapid liquidation of these debts justified, and I hope the question may receive the right hon. Gentleman's serious consideration.

Mr. KILEY: I was sorry I was not able to attract your attention, Sir, during the time when the hon. Member for North Hackney (Mr. Woolcock) was replying to questions put by the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir W. Barton). I would have endeavoured, had I spoken in the hon. Member's presence, to have persuaded him to pay more attention to the part of the most eloquent speech delivered by the President of the Board of Trade, in which he bade us be of good cheer, and have faith in ourselves and our own abilities. Judging from the speech of the hon. Member for North Hackney, he seemed to be afraid that if we did not go in for tariffs and prohibition, the dyeing industry, which has been one of our possessions for centuries and more, would entirely disappear. The hon. Gentleman, however, has entirely overlooked the fact that though Germany is great and powerful in the matter of dyes other countries compete with her. The Swiss people have not prohibited German dyes coming into Switzerland. Despite the fact that there is no prohibition of German goods, the Swiss have not held up their hands in despair, but are carrying on their business, increasing their factories, and doing very well indeed, despite all the rumours as to the Germans endeavouring to sweep everyone else off the face of the earth. The Germans have been trying to do that for many years, but have never succeeded in doing anything save to increase British trade. Those hon. Members who will take the trouble to look at the Board of Trade figures will see that in 1913 we exported more British-made goods than we did in any other year. That was the time when we were told that Germany was capturing the trade of the world.
I was interested in the speech delivered by my once good Free Trade colleague in the representation of the Borough of Stepney. So far as dyes and chemicals are concerned, he has now become a full-blooded protectionist. They concern the industry with which he is connected and about which he no doubt knows a great deal. But I do not gather from his speech that he has very much regard for the textile industry. If my memory serves me aright, the total amount of dye imports into this country in pre-War days was something less than £2,000,000, and the export of textile goods for which the dyes were necessary was something over
£200,000,000. I did not hear very much of the £200,000,000, though I did hear a great deal about the £2,000,000. If I were convinced that those £2,000,000 worth of dyes could not be obtained without some assistance from the State, I would be the last person to object, and in fact we are spending an enormous sum of money at the present day on industrial and scientific research, and if that is not enough I would give a great deal more.
The country is suffering to-day from the manner in which the dye prohibition is being worked. A few months ago I met the representative of a large American buying house, and he told me that the exports of certain British goods to New York in 1921 were three times what they were in 1920. He went to a Scottish woollen factory to obtain certain goods, and the Scottish manufacturer could not execute his order because he could not obtain the necessary dyes, and this American buyer was so astonished at the stupidity of the English Government, who put obstacles in the way of development of trade with the "United States, that he made a special point of looking me up in London to give me the information. That information has been supplied to the Dye Committee, and I am happy to say that the man has now got his goods, thanks to having the assistance of a Member in Parliament, but without the assistance of a Member of Parliament that could not have been done. It is very wrong that it should be necessary to have a Member of Parliament to perform this service.
This afternoon the President of the Board of Trade in his very interesting and delightful speech struck a note of cheerfulness, and at the same time did point out the injurious effect of tariffs which are being imposed against Great Britain, and not only the effect of tariffs, but of prohibition. We know the case of South Africa, where they prohibited entirely the admission of goods. We also know that France in particular has been constantly increasing her tariffs. We also know that we are losing a certain amount of trade through the lack of preferential conditions which might easily be obtained in Czecho-Slovakia. They have made an arrangement with France for preferential treatment, and I do not know why the Board of Trade have not made some move in this direction. If the statement which
is in circulation is correct the obstacle to making a preferential arrangement was the decision of the Board of Trade, that if they did make an arrangement the provisions of the Safeguarding of Industries Act would have to be dealt with. If that statement is not correct it would be very useful to have some denial from the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad to be able to agree that there is a distinct sign of an improvement in trade in London. Business has taken a turn for the better. There are more ships and goods coming to the Port of London, though, unfortunately, there is still a considerable amount of unemployment. In my constituency alone there are on the riverside something like 6,000 men nearly all connected with the docks in want of steady employment, and if the President, can do a little more than he has done it will help to solve, to some extent, that problem of unemployment.
One point in detail in connection with the Department of the right hon. Gentleman. Has he come to any definite decision as to the Department with regard to the registration of firms which is under his control? The Geddes Committee have recommended the closing down of this Department. If my information is correct four-fifths of the registrations which this Department undertakes are the registrations of firms consisting of a father and son or two brothers trading together. There is no necessity why this Department should continue to exist so far as these firms are concerned. With regard to aliens there may be some justification, but I would be glad to know whether it is intended to adopt the recommendations to close down this Department or to revise it, so that British subjects, especially in cases such as those to which I have referred, may be left out of it altogether. In reference to the Exhibition Department, if my information is correct, at a certain period of the year certain gentlemen are engaged as canvassers to go all round the country soliciting tenants for the space which the President has got to let in his exhibitions, and while the Board of Trade charge 3s. a square foot at their exhibitions others, such as the textile and the sugar exhibitions, charge at least 4s. But the Board of Trade not only can let the same space for less but they can do something better, they can get members of the Royal Family to visit their exhibitions. This is very much
resented by other exhibition authorities who do not want Government competition and who think that if the Board of Trade must be in the exhibition business they should not exploit the Royal Family in this way but should do their business in their own way. I am told and it might be interesting to know whether it is correct that at least one-third of those who exhibit one year will not exhibit a second year, and therefore canvassers have to be sent around to replace these people.
There is a return which used to be published once a month, and is now published once a quarter in reference to foreign trade and commerce. It deals with export trade to various foreign countries. From a study of this return I think that the right hon. Gentleman might consider the advisability of publishing it only once a year, and if that were done it would meet all the requirements of the case. Attention may be drawn to some matters of detail in connection with the administration of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The Board of Trade recently issued an order that in the case of small items where they do not amount to more than 10 per cent. of the value of an article they can be omitted from the duty. That is done very largely in the clearing of goods when they are of a complicated nature and likely to cause delay, but a great deal of delay is caused at the docks. One illustration was in reference to goods of the value of £100 on which there was duty to the extent of 4s. 8d. It was an apparatus on a small part of which this duty had to be levied. This apparatus was held up for days, and charges were accumulated, and at the end of that time the Treasury obtained a duty of 4s. 8d. It is in the power of the Board of Trade, by arrangement with the Customs, to remedy this. Having issued an order which goes a certain part of the way, I would suggest an extension of the order, so that all items of this character should be included.
I have brought under the notice of the Department the case of a millinery firm which imported some small fancy articles on which a duty of 3s. 1d. was charged, but no less than 15s. was charged by the Post Office for opening and ticing up the parcels. One is bound to bring these cases under the notice of the Board of Trade, because it is the function of the Board of Trade to look after and foster
trade and do everything to assist it, and where matters of this kind which obstruct trade arise, the President should do everything in his power to help. I would ask whether the time has not arrived when the Board of Trade could well give up a number of the Departments which have nothing to do with trade or the development of trade? If we could have a Minister whose entire object would be the development of trade to the advantage of the country at large, something in the nature of a Minister of Commerce, then the President, instead of being occupied with matters of small importance such as the registration of names, could give his time to matters of consequence which would really be of advantage to the country.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I desire to emphasise what has been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) as to the great necessity of pushing on with the work of removing wreckage as speedily as possible. Those of us who have some acquaintance with shipping know how great the dangers are, and it fills us with admiration to see the extraordinarily skilful way in which the British Mercantile Marine avoid these dangers which are constantly in their path. The service which they render to the nation as a whole puts upon us the obligation to do all we can for their safety. I wish to join in the appreciation of the way in which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade opened the discussion this afternoon, distinguished as was his speech by little touches of humour and by what is the most valuable quality we can get in our public affairs—not only lucidity of expression, but a real and wide knowledge of his subject. It was delightful to hear a first-class business man talking about the Board of Trade. When he was laying before the Committee his survey of the general conditions of the trade of the country, I wished that his colleague, the right hon. Gentleman who presides over the destinies of the Exchequer, had been here to hear him, because I am certain that if he took, as we did, full advantage of the position which the President of the Board of Trade disclosed, his roseate-tinted views of the Estimates of Revenue for next year would be modified to a much more sober extent than was disclosed to us the other night.
It is clear that we are in only the middle of a very long lane. I share with my right hon. Friend his great satisfaction that, speaking generally, the worst is past. In some parts of our trade, probably, the worst is still to come, but, speaking generally, I think it is safe to say that the worst is over. There is no more important evidence of that than the revival in the export coal trade of the country. That shows that a demand is arriving overseas for the necessity of business. It is a great satisfaction to know that 90 per cent, of the demand for our coal traffic overseas is in the hands of the coal exporters of the country again. I say 90 per cent, of the demand. Unfortunately, it is not 90 per cent, of the supply compared with 1914. Sufficient coal is being raised, but the difficulties of transport are so great and the block at the ports is so disadvantageous that although we have the demand and we can raise the coal we cannot get the stuff away. That is the position in that part of the coal trade of which I have personal knowledge. Unfortunately the export trade in Scotland is not on quite so satisfactory a basis as is the trade in South Wales and in some parts of the North of England. I have no doubt that trade will improve there and that a satisfactory revival will occur.
Nothing was more interesting than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the immense importance of a revival of our shipping industry. It is safe to say, "No export of coal, no import of raw material." The one follows the other automatically. The only way to get raw material in is to get the tramp ships out, fully loaded with coal. Almost every shipload of coal is worth more than its weight in gold, so to speak. If we send out our coal we are certain of getting back raw material and of being able to manufacture it at a lower rate than would otherwise be possible. With regard to the re-organisation of the Board of Trade, the sooner we can get rid of the redundant war services, the Food Department, the Wheat Commission and the other minor Departments, the better. The Geddes Report said on this subject:
Great opportunities will exist for the staff being carried Bug after they have become redundant.
If I have an opportunity of speaking on this Vote on another occasion, I shall ask my right hon. Friend to state how far
the recommendations, not only of the Geddes Committee, but of the Departmental Committees, have been carried out, and how far his own ideas of further economies are likely to be realised in the immediate future.

Mr. BALDWIN: I am sure that my Department will have no cause to complain of the tone of the Debate to-day. I would like, first of all, in answer to my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, to say that I had intended to make some observations on the Estimates and to give information to the Committee as to the position of the War Departments, but when I learned of the possible curtailment of the Debate this evening I thought it better to leave that on one side rather than occupy too long a time with my speech. Perhaps at the moment it will be sufficient to say that I hope that all the War Departments will come to an end in the course of the present financial year. More I will not say at the moment. I hope I may have an opportunity of doing so later. I am glad that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) raised a point on which I had some apprehension of my own. I, unfortunately, have not with me any information as to what has been done in the last year or two, but I can tell him that the full programme submitted by Trinity House is being carried out this year, and that, after what was said by him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), I will look personally into this matter again and see whether any means can be adopted to expedite the removal of these wrecks. My right hon. Friends know as well as I the difficulty at present in obtaining as much money as one would like for the most necessary service, but if at any time I am convinced of the necessity for more work being done in the year, I shall lose no opportunity of trying to impress that upon those who control the purse.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Lieut.-Colonel Willey), I assure the Committee that we are doing all we can to press on with the collection of pre-War debts, and I shall be only too pleased at any time to receive representations from any particular bodies, such as that represented by him, who may wish to put any further points before me or to make any sugges-
tions for the expediting of collection. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) made a very interesting speech on tariffs. We are watching the situation very closely, but he will realise that it is an extremely difficult thing to bargain with a country when you have very little with which to bargain, and that from the essence of the case a Free Trade country, such as we are still, finds it very difficult to argue with a country that has a tariff weapon in its hand. I can assure him that we are using every argument that we can think of to come to some arrangement with Spain, whose tariff is a very hard one for us. The Finance Bill has not yet been before the House, and there are means of exercising pressure, even for a country in our comparatively defenceless position.
We had a very interesting discussion on dyes, and fortunately we had the pleasure of hearing two experts who cancelled each other, and that always make the position of the Minister a much easier one than it otherwise would be. The hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) raised a number of points. With regard to issuing Orders of the nature he suggested, I would merely put this to the Committee. The Safeguarding of Industries Act has been working for a short time only. With an Act of this kind in a country like this, that is not used to the working of even a modified tariff, people are naturally inclined to complain very much at the forms they have to fill and the delays that occur before the Customs have got into their stride with the work. It will soon be time to review some of the effects of the Act in such matters as those alluded to by the hon. Member, just as it will soon be time to review the work of the Committees to which the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) referred. I shall do both those things, and if I can see any way in which any improvement can be effected, which will mean less trouble or greater efficiency, I shall not hesitate to adopt it. The hon. Member also asked me if I would convert a quarterly publication into an annual. Of course, that would save some money. I will look into the matter. The circulation of this special kind of document is not necessarily a test of its utility, because there is no doubt that the "Daily Mail" has a much lamer circulation than
the "Economist," but that if you wanted to study financial problems you would subscribe to the "Economist."
8.0 P.M.
I was not profoundly impressed with the hon. Member's story about the American who was so amazed at our putting difficulties in the way of getting dyes. It is much like an American joke. The American quite forgot that in his country the greatest difficulties are put in the way, because the importation of dyes is prohibited, and if they get in at all they are subject to a swinging duty. It is no answer to me to say that they have dyes in America, because that industry was built up under strict Protection. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith regaled us with one of his apt quotations. I know no one in this House who can bring a more apt quotation to the Table than he can. I remember with delight one or two he gave, and I enjoyed as much in hearing, as he did in producing, a quotation from "Pilgrim's Progress." When I heard it, another one occurred to me, not from "Pilgrim's Progress," but the words in which Betsy Trotwood described Mr. Dick in "David Copperfield":
Nobody knows that man's mind so well as myself, and he is the most amenable and friendly creature in existence. If he likes to fly a kite sometimes, why shouldn't he?
A kite has been flown, and I will do my best to answer the various points the hon. and gallant Gentleman has put. I agree with him, and with what every member of the Committee has said as to the damage that is produced by uncertainty. During those long, lean years of opposition, when we were trampled down night after night by mechanical majorities, I think the great apostle of Free Trade on these Benches was my right hon. colleague the Minister of Health, and I remember his using these words, which always remain in my memory:
Business can flourish with tariffs"—
He made that remark from the benches behind as a Free Trade Liberal—
Business can flourish without tariffs. What business cannot stand is uncertainty.
I think he was absolutely right, and if I am responsible in any way for causing uncertainty to business men, no one regrets it more than I do. My hon. and gallant Friend has challenged me as to the delay in making a decision on the
question of fabric gloves. I shall have no difficulty at all in giving him an answer, because the answer was given very briefly and very accurately by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in answer to a question, a few days ago. My hon. and gallant Friend said the other evening that he could not understand the delay. I think I can explain it. If I remember aright, I assured the House, during the passage of the Bill last year, that if eases, where matters ought fairly to be considered before an Order was actually made, were not able to be brought up under the Statute before the Committee, I should regard it as my duty to satisfy myself on these points before I was issuing, or refusing to issue, an Order. It is perfectly obvious, in this particular case, my hon. and gallant Friend explained quite clearly to the House that there was an interest worthy of consideration, which was unable to be represented directly under the Statute before the Committee. I, therefore, took it upon myself to see a deputation from those interests, which I did, and the Committee knows that it is not a matter of four and twenty hours to arrange to see a deputation, or to see them. I saw several people in connection with this matter. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, owing to circumstances certainly beyond my control, it has been impossible to get anything like a full Cabinet meeting for many weeks, and this matter has to be considered at such a Cabinet, which, I hope, may be held in a very short time, and, as soon as a decision has been come to, that decision will be announced.
The Act introduced a fresh principle into the legislation of this country, and it is only natural that, before a matter is fixed, very careful examination should be given to all the points likely to arise. That examination has been given. With regard to the gas mantles which my hon. and gallant Friend said were in the Act, they are not in the Act. If there should over be a real tariff in this country, I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend would do. He expresses such terror at the little fragment in this Act, that I almost tremble to contemplate the result which a full-blooded tariff would have upon him, if there ever should be one. The only consolation I can find is that there are people who are frightened at a mouse, but will contemplate an
elephant with equanimity. I hope that will be the case with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I feel convinced that, frightened as he has been with the Safeguarding of Industries Act, I am sure, if he had a full-blooded tariff, he would make friends with it.

Mr. L. MALONE: I want to confine the very few remarks I have time to make to what the President of the Board of Trade said with regard to coal, and what he ought to have said in regard to oil. He dealt with a number of matters—exports, exchanges, tariffs—about which, if I had longer time, I could give him very sound advice, and I hope on another occasion I shall have an opportunity of giving him my views on the question of exchange and tariffs and other matters, but I want to talk now on the question of coal. The President of the Board of Trade told us that the coal trade had revived, and that so far as the bunker export trade was concerned we were nearly back to our pre-War standard. I want to put it to him, that this revival of the coal export trade is probably only a temporary revival due to the War shortage, and due to the replenishment of coal stock in various parts of the world. The question of the replacement of coal by oil fuel is a question which affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and demands more attention. What I am going to propose is that the President of the. Board of Trade should appoint a Committee to discuss and report as to the probable effect in the next five or ten years of the replacement of coal by oil fuel. It affects us in two broad directions. It affects the lives and prosperity of hundreds of thousands of miners, and it affects the question of export. Every day oil fuel is replacing coal in the bunkers of our ships, both mercantile and war, in the tenders of locomotives, in road transport, in air transport, in factories, in blast furnaces, and in domestic life—in fact everywhere one goes one sees oil fuel replacing coal. This means that the coal-fields throughout this country are dying. Our trade may have revived in the last few years after the War, but in the next five or ten, or, it may be, even 20 years, the coal-fields of this country will be dying. Many of them will have been eliminated. It means that hundreds of thousands of miners who are now
employed will be out of work. The coal-owners, I believe, are well aware of this. If the markets are examined, if the financial statements of the coal companies are examined, it will be found that new money is not being put into coal mines and coal development. Profits out of coal companies are being transferred to other industries. That means that coal mineowners and others connected with the coal trade will not lose all when the mines die in this country, because a large portion of their money is invested in other industries; but it means that coalminers will be out of work, and 800,000 or 900,000 people will have to be provided for by some means or another. Exports will be affected in this way. No far-sighted Government can possibly fail to ignore this question. It will vitally

effect the industrial condition of this country probably in the next five or ten years. Therefore, the proposition I put to the Government is that the President of the Board of Trade should appoint a Committee to consider this matter and make a report at the earliest possible date.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman let nothing prevent an early issue of an order under Part II of the Act in respect of fabric gloves? Not only is my hon. and gallant Friend interested in this, but a large number of my constituents are, and I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend will bear it in mind.

Question put, "That Sub-head A be reduced by £100."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 177.

Division No. 103.]
AYES.
[8.15 p.m.


Banton, George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Halls, Walter
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hancock, John George
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayward, Evan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Robertson, John


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hinds, John
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Cairns, John
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Irving, Dan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, George A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnstone, Joseph
Spoor, B. G.


Edwards, C, (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, John Edward


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kennedy, Thomas
Swan, J. E.


Finney, Samuel
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Foot, Isaac
Kiley, James Daniel
Waterson, A. E.


Galbraith, Samuel
Lawson, John James
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gillis, William
Lunn, William
Wignall, James


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wintringham, Margaret


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas



Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Hogge and Mr. G. Thorne.


NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Evans, Ernest


Armitage, Robert
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Falcon, Captain Michael


Atkey, A. Ft.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Carr, W. Theodore
Fell, Sir Arthur


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Coats, Sir Stuart
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Forestier-Walker, L.


Barnston, Major Harry
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Forrest, Walter


Barrand, A. R.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cope, Major William
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bigland, Alfred
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Birchall, J. Dearman
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Gilbert, James Daniel


Blades, sir George Rowland
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Blair, Sir Reginald
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Glyn, Major Ralph


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Gould, James C.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Green, Albert (Derby)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Brassey, H. L. C.
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Gregory, Holman


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William dive
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Brown, Major D. C.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bruton, Sir James
Elveden, Viscount
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)


Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Simm, M. T.


Hills, Major John Waller
Morrison, Hugh
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Neal, Arthur
Stanton, Charles Butt


Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Stewart, Gershom


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Taylor, J.


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Pearce, Sir William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdoeen, South)


Johnson, Sir Stanley
Perring, William George
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Pickering, Colonel Emil W.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Tryon, Major George Clement


Kidd, James
Polson, Sir Thomas A.
Waddington, R.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Purchase, H. G.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Rae, H. Norman
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Lindsay, William Arthur
Ramsden, G. T.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Lloyd, George Butler
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Lorden, John William
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Windsor, Viscount


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Reid, D. D.
Winterton, Earl


Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Remer, J. R.
Wise, Frederick


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Renwick, Sir George
Wolmer, Viscount


McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Richardson, Lt -Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Woolcock, William James U.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S)
Rodger, A. K.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Mason, Robert
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Middlebrook, Sir William
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Parker.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after a Quarter pant Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (LEEDS AND BRADFORD EXTENSION) BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. LANE-FOX: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
The Motion I have to make, that- this Bill be read this day six months, is, on a Provisional Order Bill of this kind, I admit, somewhat unusual, but in asking the House to take what may be rather an unusual course, I am prepared to justify it by endeavouring to prove that for the proposal of the Bill itself there
is no precedent whatever and that the Bill contains proposals which are very unusual both in their character and in their magnitude. If this were a case of outside areas complaining of misgovernment, areas outside the big boroughs wishing to be incorporated in those boroughs and wishing to have the benefit of the better government, and the advantages which those boroughs could give them—if this were a case depending entirely upon matters of detail, details of sanitation, details of education, administration, and so on, I quite agree that it would be a matter which ought to be decided by a Committee, and the House would be right in saying, "These are matters of detail, and the Committee is the place in which these matters of detail should be decided." But when we have a case of this sort, in which not only is there the greatest hostility to the proposed incorporation in these boroughs on the part of the outside areas, and when, in addition, the case does not depend upon matters of detail, but can be decided by this House, and should be decided by this House, on broad principles, of which this House has every opportunity of being seized, without the peculiar capacity and opportunity of going into details which only a Committee can have, in that case, I say, there is nothing contrary to precedent, and
nothing unusual, in asking this House to take a decision on those broad principles, and to decide here and now that they are not going to sanction a Bill which so grossly travesties the wishes of the populations affected, and which is so contrary, as I hope to show, to many of the principles of our Parliamentary procedure as they have been expressed by previous Committees.
This is purely a case of the aggrandisement of great boroughs at the expense of their weaker neighbours. The proposal in this Bill, made on behalf of the cities of Leeds and Bradford, is a very remarkable one. Let us take the city of Leeds first. The city of Leeds has had two extensions since 1912. In that year it annexed 4,670 acres. In 1920 there was another extension and over 1,800 acres were annexed making a total of 6,400 acres and a population of nearly 9,000. They now propose to annex a further 17,000 acres—not yet having fully developed their nice little property of 6,000 acres—with a population of 48,757 giving these totals, if this Bill were passed; Total acreage, 45,000; total population, 500,000. To make an interesting comparison I find that if the proposal goes through, the city of Leeds alone, will have an acreage of between 2,000 and 3,000 acres more than the combined total occupied by Liverpool and Manchester, although it will only have a population equal to one-third of the combined totals of the populations of those cities. Birmingham with its population of nearly 1,000,000 is content to occupy an acreage 2,000 acres less than is proposed for Leeds with half the population. I might give further figures, but I do not wish to weary the House. The proposal made by Bradford under this Bill is that it shall be allowed to annex 10,000 acres making a total of 33,000 acres and a total population, if the Bill passes, of 330,000. Again I might make comparison with other cities to show that this is a proposal which cannot be said to be necessary, and is enormously in excess of what has been considered sufficient for the requirements of other great cities in the country.
If this were the wish of the outside areas it might be plausible, and a proposal for which a good deal could be said. If it were really the wish of the population,
the House would feel that there must be strong reasons for their desire. But these areas have neither been considered nor consulted, and at this moment there is the bitterest opposition to the Bill. Every Member of the House who sits for any of the areas which it is proposed to annex is prepared to stand up and say in this Debate that his constituents are wholly and bitterly opposed to the Bill. In addition to that, we are to have the assistance in this Debate of two of the Members for the city of Bradford, who are prepared to say that their constituents are not anxious to see the Bill go through. In spite of every effort to persuade these outside areas; in spite of the eloquent appeals toy city councillors travelling round and pointing out the enormous advantage and the great benefits to be derived; in spite of proposals of lower rates and all the bribes that are offered in these cases, the whole of that eloquence has fallen cold. The hostility remains, as has been proved by a plebiscite and by resolutions passed at public meetings by overwhelming majorities, if not unanimously. What has finally clinched and proved the opinion of the population is that at the last local elections all the local councillors were elected largely on this point, and I do not believe one single man has been returned to any of these local bodies who is not in opposition—wholesale, hearty, and complete opposition—to the proposal for going into Leeds and Bradford. There is one small district, Clayton, which wishes to go into Bradford, and no one will object. If the population wishes, it is only right their views should be taken into account, but that is a different matter altogether. That is a district which has expressed a wish, and, apart from that, I say without hesitation it has been amply proved that every local authority and the population throughout its district is absolutely and entirely hostile to the proposal.
Let us compare with this, for a moment, the indifference which appears to be shown by the cities of Leeds and Bradford. At the local inquiry, the witnesses for the Leeds and Bradford Corporations were challenged to say that this matter had ever been before the electors. They were challenged to produce an election address advocating this proposal. That challenge was not met. There was no reply. It was impossible to produce any election address in which this pro-
posal had been advocated or any proposal passed by a public meeting of ratepayers, or any other body of the citizens. Surely, I am justified in saying that there is no precedent for a Bill of this sort, and that the House will be amply justified in throwing it out. If it is a case of dealing with precedents I should like to quote what has been said by Committees of the House on this subject on previous occasions. Take what was said by the Commons Committee dealing with the Liverpool Bill in 1890. They said:
We have heard the whole case of the promoters, and we have heard only part of the case of the opponents, and so far as we have heard the case of the opponents we are certainly of opinion that they have conclusively established to our minds that the wish of the inhabitants of these different districts is to remain under their own local boards. On the other hand, we are not satisfied by the evidence which has been adduced by the promoters, that there is any grave reason of public policy or other, which would induce us to treat these communities like a flock of sheep to be handed over without regard to their own will, and to transfer them from the government of their own local boards to the government of Liverpool, however excellent, ns we believe is to be, that government is.
Later on, in reference to the Birkenhead decision of 1920, I should like to quote the opinion of the Joint Committee which decided on that case, presided over by Lord Kin tore. The Joint Committee stated
They desire to add an expression of their opinion that subject to special considerations of public advantage"—
We can see whether any such special considerations can be proved in this case—
no Provisional Order for borough extensions should be brought before Parliament for confirmation which has not previously received the substantial support of the ratepayers in the areas proposed to be incorporated.
Those are principles I am asking the House to re-affirm. I do not think the greatest advocate of this Bill can say that the substantial support of the ratepayers has been obtained or even suggested. From the point of view of county government, I should like to suggest that a hardship will be created if this Bill is passed. What justification can the House have under these circumstances—against the hostility of the population—for entirely dislocating the system of local government? I speak strongly, as an old member of the West Riding County
Council, and I should like to ask, having regard to the statement put forward in various documents sent out by the promoters of this Bill—whether they really consider the interests of the county, or of the local bodies which govern these areas, is entirely a matter of £ s. d. I admit the importance of £ s. d., but it is a secondary consideration. The promoters suggest that the Local Government Adjustments Act, 1913, removes the county grievance. I should like to point out that ail that Act does is to give the council 15 years' purchase, as a maximum compensation, for the total annual loss which they are likely to incur. I do not know what financier would accept 15 years' purchase for compensation for loss of income; therefore, this is a matter which, I think, ought to be considered.
I do, however, want to say this: even if full compensation in money were given it would not be sufficient to make up for the loss of the system of government which has been built up through many years of patient labour, and which, it is admitted, is of a very complete, satisfactory, and thorough character. Nothing can justify the wrecking by this Bill, as would be the case, of the whole system in these districts of local government and its ancillaries, of the secondary school system, the system of joint hospitals, the tuberculous sanatoria, and so on, and which would necessitate the re-adjustment of the district surveyors, medical officers, police, petty sessions, and all the rest of it. You have no right to wreck the civic life of these rural districts, of which they are intensely proud, for the grand ambitions of these great cities which happen to be in their neighbourhood. I think I have said enough to prove to the House that it is not necessary on this occasion to go into the various details which might otherwise be given. I think the House can decide on the broad principles, so that they shall not perpetrate an act of grave injustice by this Bill.
May I just inquire for a moment or two, what is the origin of these proposals, why are they put forward, what has been the inspiring motive? I should like to tell the House that the city of Leeds has a very ambitious alderman, of whom she may well be proud, and who is one of the finest figures of an alderman that I ever saw. He is, indeed, a very great personal
friend of my own, and I should be loath to say a word against him. He has a great voice, which could hold its own even in that famous traditional country of Bashan. His eloquence is equal to five minutes or to five hours. He exercises a power—for he has a cheery smile—which no one can resist. He has spent the whole of his life for the city of Leeds, he has given his life splendidly to the city of his birth, and the city to which he belongs. So much is he identified with the city that, at the local inquiry, he said proudly, and quite correctly, "I am Leeds!" It is said that an unkind counsel, looking at the admirable proportions of his victim, made the retort, "I hope, Mr. Alderman, that you do not propose to expand any further." He is a powerful personality and a justly popular personality. But in this matter he has fairly swept Leeds off its legs. He has persuaded his colleague to endorse the provisions of this Bill.
In my belief Bradford is only an unwilling accomplice, dragged into this by the knowledge that if they did not come in they would have no share in the spoils at all, and that the area that they might, from their point of view, justly claim for themselves would be engulfed by their powerful neighbour. They have, I believe, been brought into this very unwillingly. I do appeal to the House under these circumstances—which I have briefly tried to describe—to say that we are not justified in imposing upon our constituencies the additional expense of a Parliamentary Committee. We all know what the expense of the Parliamentary Committee may be
Economy is urgent. There are some sections of this House who sometimes have different views on this matter, but economy is urgent. Here is an opportunity to show we are not going to put the country nor the district concerned to expense. The rates surely are high enough without imposing this additional burden. Those opposing this Motion and who speak on behalf of the Bill may point out that the main expense has already been incurred by the local inquiry; but if they urge that, I say it is the most indecent argument that any respectable body of men could use; that is to say, that the fact that you have already imposed so much expense on your unfortunate neighbours is a reason why they should submit to still
further expenditure! I hope that argument will not be used. I do say that it will be very unfair that if in addition to the expense which already has been incurred there is added the further great expense of a Parliamentary Committee. This then is our justification for asking the House not to pass this Measure. May I, in conclusion, say that those who are opposing the Bill do not say, as has been represented in some circulars which have been sent out, that there will in the future be no borough extension.
We all recognise that borough extension must take place. The Act of 1888 recognises and provides for the natural overflow of boroughs beyond their boundaries. But this is a different matter altogether. The Act of 1880 never contemplated wholesale grabbing of this kind at the expense of poorer neighbours. That is a principle which I put it this House will assert by rejecting this Bill. At the present moment there, is a Commission dealing with the question of Greater London. We say that this is a subject which ought to be dealt with by a Royal Commission before any schemes of this kind are put through. Before such is done there ought to be a regular system by which the local government readjustments necessary should be properly settled. Until that has come to pass, until there is some definite rule in these matters, and some different system set up, I say that this is not the time—and I trust the House will agree with me—to pass cruel and tyrannical schemes of this kind. For that reason I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.

Mr. BARRAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) has covered the ground so fully, and presented so strong a case for the rejection of the Bill, by the facts and figures he has laid before the House, that there is not much left for me to say. I propose, therefore, to deal not so much with the general aspect of the question, which has been so fully dealt with, but to confine myself in the main to the particular application of what the hon. Member has said to my constituency, because it is vitally affected by this Bill. Should the Bill, unfortunately, receive a Second Reading, it would destroy the local government in the greater part of that
constituency. I have received the very strongest representations from every part of my constituency which is affected by this Bill, to urge upon this House in every possible way their claim to be protected against what they can only regard as an act of unprovoked aggression. In my constituency there are four urban district councils and one municipal corporation, and if this Bill passes every one of those will cease to exist, and will be absorbed into what I can only describe as the outer fringes of an inefficiently managed area. In asking for the protection of this House against that aggression, they have not merely to rely, and they do not merely rely, upon the fact that the House is the custodian of the liberties of the people; but they rely also upon the practice and the expressed views of Committees of this House in regard to schemes of this description.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash has road statements made by most important Committees dealing with schemes of this very character, and he has indicated that as far back as 1890, in considering the Liverpool Corporation Bill, the Committee took the view that such schemes should not go through against the wishes of the people concerned unless there were grave reasons of public policy for varying that rule. Time and again since 1890 the Committees of this House have adopted the same view, and expressed the same opinion; and in pursuance of that opinion have rejected schemes such as this when they have been presented to them. As lately as 1920 in the celebrated Birkenhead case the Committee strongly expressed its opinion, not merely that such schemes should not go through in the absence of special considerations of public advantage, but they went further and said that such Bills ought not to be presented to this House. It is in pursuance of that opinion, from which this House has never dissented, that we claim that this Bill should be rejected here and now, and not sent to a Committee.
It has already been stated that the opinion in the districts affected by this Bill is strongly, indeed unanimously, hostile to it. Speaking for the districts which I know best, to which I have already referred, the municipal Corporation of Pudsey and the urban district councils concerned, I have yet to hear of a single individual who is in favour
of this scheme. As a matter of fact, the expression of opinion against this scheme is absolutely without precedent. We are accustomed to fairly large majorities on small polls, lint in this particular case the expression of opinion is based upon the whole of the local government register, and in every one of those districts not less than 90 per cent. of the actual local government electors on the register have expressed an opinion hostile to these proposals. Never before in local government has such a majority been obtained against proposals of this sort. Therefore, if this House, is prepared to support its own Committees, and act upon an opinion which has been laid down again and again, and which must be assumed to have received the support and assent of this House, then we call with confidence upon this House to-night to end this Bill here and now, and not send it to a Committee.
As a matter of fact, we are placed in a somewhat difficult position owing to the form of procedure which has been adopted. Although we are in the position of defending our own position, and we are not the aggressors, we have to state our ease before those who are making this claim have stated their case. Nevertheless we have every confidence, in the strength of our case, and we do not complain of that handicap, but it compels us to anticipate the objections and arguments of our opponents, and deal with them in advance. The people who are protesting against these schemes are protesting, not merely because they are unjust and unfair and contrary to principles which have been laid down by this House, but they protest against them because of the inordinate expense that will be imposed upon the ratepayers of these districts. I have said that we have to anticipate our opponents' arguments. So far as we can gather from what has been published, those arguments are few and very thin. There is, for example, that time-honoured old argument, always brought forward in such circumstances, about the so-called runaway ratepayer. I would like to say in this connection that the runaway ratepayers are not likely to be found in the outlying districts which are affected by this Bill. Yon will have to go to places like Harrogate and Scarborough for runaway ratepayers. As
a matter of fact, there is nothing in that argument any more than in the other arguments brought forward by Leeds and Bradford. The townships they are trying to absorb do not contain the runaway ratepayers of Leeds. Such townships as Pudsey and the urban districts of Calverley, Farsley, Rawdon, Rothwell, and Yeadon are self-contained industrial townships, the people who live there, work there, and there is no sort of excuse for annexing them on the plea that they ought to be brought into Leeds in order to contribute to the rates.
There are questions, I know, in connection with health. One of the arguments, and I admit it is one of the strongest, is that it is necessary to have larger areas in order to administer public health properly. I admit that is so, but there is another solution of that, and it is not to drag these people into great cities which are altogether too large to be administered properly. The right way to deal with this problem is to link together some of these smaller districts, if they are not large enough to deal with public health properly, in the same way in which districts are linked together into Unions for the purposes of the Poor Law. You could join together districts which would be able to provide a proper health service, and that is an infinitely better solution than anything which is suggested by Leeds or Bradford in connection with this scheme. Then look at some of the other flimsy reasons which are urged by Leeds for annexing these surrounding districts. One argument they have used—I wonder how they managed to keep a straight face while they did so—was that, because some of the people of these districts used the University of Leeds, therefore they ought to be brought within Leeds. At the time that they were putting that forward, I happened to have a son of my own at Leeds University. My house is 12 miles from Westminster, and so, I suppose, if there is anything in that argument, Enfield, where I live, ought to have been brought into Leeds. Then, again, they suggested that, because the people of the surrounding districts used the railway stations of Leeds, that was an argument in favour of these places being brought in. I suppose that many of us have at times to use those railway
stations, and I am not quite sure where the extension, on this basis, would stop. Indeed, I believe Alderman Wilson, who has already been referred to, suggested that his own ambition would probably not stop short of Edinburgh.
I think I have said enough to show the nature of the arguments put forward by Leeds as a ground for annexing these districts. I venture to say that none of them, nor any argument that they can bring forward, can be said in any sense to come within the description applied in the Liverpool case, that is to say, to constitute a grave consideration of public policy or a special consideration of public advantage. I know that some of the Leeds people say that it would be an advantage to bring in these districts. It would be an advantage, I grant, in some respects to Leeds, and they seem to think that the public advantage means the same thing as the advantage of Leeds, but it does not mean anything of the sort. I know they hope to get some advantage out of it. Alderman Wilson, in one of those moments of blazing indiscretion which are the dread and delight of his friends, when challenged on one occasion as to the expense that would be inflicted on Leeds, said, "I hope to make a profit out of it." That is the real genesis of the scheme. The administration of Leeds in recent years has been extravagant and inefficient, and they hope to cover up their tracks in this way by spreading the expense over the surrounding districts. The debt per head of population in Pudsey and other places is something like £5, but it is something like £25 in Leeds, and that has been one of the reasons why the Leeds City Council is anxious to bring some of these surrounding districts into its own rateable area.
I now want to dwell for a moment upon another aspect of the question, and to state other reasons why this Bill should not receive a Second Beading, but should be summarily rejected by this House. I want to refer to the question of economy. Never was it more necessary that we should do everything in our power to economise, not only in national finance, but perhaps even more in local finance. The rates are becoming an intolerable burden in this country, and, unless something is done to check their growth and hinder unnecessary expenditure, they may reach the breaking point,
as, indeed, they already have in certain districts. If this Bill is not killed by this House at this stage, what is it going to cost? Alderman Wilson has made a statement on that subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer), in a most cogent and convincing letter to the Press a few days ago, showed conclusively the need for rejecting this Bill, in order to save the terrible expenditure which its further progress would entail. Alderman Wilson replied to that in a letter which appeared in the "Yorkshire Post" of Friday last, in which he said that for the most part this expenditure has already been incurred. No one wishes to doubt the good faith or the veracity of Alderman Wilson. No one who knows him would dream of doing so. Otherwise, I should feel compelled to apply to that statement a well-known Parliamentary expression which contains the words "frigid and calculated." It simply is not true. I charitably assume that that statement was due to the same cause which, I believe, Dr. Johnson on one occasion gave as the explanation of an extraordinary error in his Dictionary. He said it was due to sheer ignorance. I venture to think that that statement of Alderman Wilson is also due to sheer ignorance.
9.0 P.M.
I do not know how much the Leeds Corporation has spent already on the Bill. It may well be that it has spent such an enormous amount that anything it can spend hereafter may be small by comparison. That is a matter for the Leeds ratepayers to settle with their city council. If I were in the secrets of the Finance and Parliamentary Committees of the Leeds Corporation, perhaps I should know better, and I think I should have more arguments against this Bill. But, in any event, whatever the Leeds Corporation have already spent on the Bill, I can tell them that if they go beyond this stage they are going to spend a tremendous amount more. I know that the other districts, which have been more careful in their management than Leeds in this respect, and have not briefed their counsel so far for this inquiry, because they are confident that this House will reject the Bill, have not incurred so much expense, and the greater part of their expense is still in front of them. But, lest there should be any misunderstand-
ing on the part of Members of this House as to what this Bill will involve if it goes any further than the Second Reading, let me say something of what I have seen myself in my experience as a member of the Local Legislation Committee of this House. For the last three weeks we have had before us an extension scheme, very much smaller than that of Leeds and Bradford. The Leeds and Bradford scheme involves, I think 15 different local bodies. The scheme to which I have referred involved only four local bodies.

Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: May I say, as Chairman of that Committee, that in the scheme to which the hon. Member refers there were at least nine different authorities who were interested, and they were represented by some 13 counsel.

Mr. BARRAND: Perhaps the hon. Member for South Leeds will note exactly what I said, namely, that there were four local bodies. I was particular to say that, but there were other interests involved. There were four local bodies concerned in that particular scheme, and there are 15 concerned in this one. In that case not one of -those four local bodies would have been seriously injured, and certainly would not have been injured in any vital point, however the decision had gone, whereas, if this scheme of Leeds and Bradford went in favour of those two cities, it would mean that some eight or nine local bodies would be swept out of existence altogether. That means that these bodies will fight desperately to the very last to maintain their existence. It has been said in reproach against some of these places that they are spending too much in fighting this scheme, but it is still true, even as it was in the days of Job, that all that a man hath he will give for his life, and what is true of a man is true of a locality also. They will make any sacrifice in order to preserve their separate identity, and who shall blame them for doing so? Therefore, from every point of view, this scheme, if it goes to an inquiry, will be longer, more difficult, and more fiercely contested than the one to which I have referred. And what has been going on there? We have had before us day after day for the last three weeks an array of 10 or 12 members of the Parliamentary bar, and they are not there for nothing. Then there are the Parliamentary agents with them, and behind them there is a great cloud of
witnesses, expert and otherwise, hovering like vultures round a carcase: all this and more also is going to happen if this Bill is allowed to have a Second Reading. All that expenditure, the expenditure on refreshers day after day to counsel, the expenses of witnesses, bringing them up, sending them home for the week-end and bringing them back again next week, is going to be saved if this House will act according to the principles its own Committees have laid down and reject this Bill because it has not complied with the wishes of the people concerned.
There are two general considerations that I want to put before the House in conclusion. There is sitting at present a Royal Commission in regard to the government of Greater London. Most interesting proposals are being put before that Committee at present, proposals which if effect is given them will perhaps revolutionise local government. They are giving a new conception of local government, of great centralised bodies dealing with what I might call centralised services, such as water, gas, electricity, and perhaps transport, dealing with these over very wide areas with great populations, and leaving the minor aspects of local government to smaller local bodies. It may well be that that is the future of local government. If it should be, and if the Commission should report in favour of it, this scheme of Leeds and Bradford has already become obsolete and out of date, and there will be something much bigger than this in the future. It will not be Leeds and Bradford fighting to annex their neighbours, but Leeds and Bradford, and many another place too, will form one great central body for these centralised services, leaving the smaller local bodies to carry on their lesser functions, and if the Bill should pass, which I do not think will be the case, and you were to destroy those small local bodies, yon might in the near future have to call them into existence again to carry out your new and larger conception of local government. There is another consideration. This scheme of Leeds and Bradford is what might be called a sort of proof charge. Just as in testing a gun you put in a charge so great that if it will stand that it will stand anything, so is it with this scheme. If this House will stand a scheme such as this, over-
riding as it does all the wishes of the inhabitants of the surrounding districts, with such a wide sweep as this, taking in and destroying 10 or 11 of these local bodies, it will stand any sort of scheme; and many another city which has ambitious schemes in mind is only waiting for the result of this Bill to decide whether it will bring them forward or not. If unhappily this Bill should pass, many another district will be threatened in the same way, and because I feel very strongly indeed that this is a thoroughly bad Bill in every way, and ought to be put an end to to-night, I ask the House to refuse it a Second Reading.

Sir WILLIAM MIDDLEBROOK: I rise to support the Second Beading, and to say how much I admired the ability with which the Mover of the Amendment put his case, and how much I enjoyed the humour with which he tried to turn it into a matter of enjoyment for the House itself. After all, that policy was an extremely skilful one, because it was meant to evade what for to-night's purpose is the main point at issue, which is whether the House shall follow what has been the customary and the almost invariable practice of referring questions of this sort to a Court constituted by itself as one of its own special Committees. So far we have had assertions, some denunciatory, some reasonable and fair, some of them expressing the point of view of one side of this controversy, but all matters which will be challenged, and probably to a great extent denied, and in the issue that is before us Parliament in years gone by has realised, with regard to schemes of this nature, that we should be in this position, and that the House of Commons would not have before it, sitting as a House, the material to enable it to form an independent, unbiassed and reasonable conclusion as to the questions in issue between us. It therefore has settled the procedure which should be adopted in matters of this sort, a procedure which in former days, prior to 1888, was a matter of a private Bill by the authorities seeking these schemes, which private Bill was almost invariably sent to a Committee of the House for consideration. My friends who are strongly opposed to this have been quoting to us the dictum and the action of various Committees which have sat in recent years upon these schemes. With
this I am in full accord, but I say to them, "If you rely so strongly as you have done to-night upon the action of Committees of this House, why your lack of confidence in following the ordinary procedure with regard to the case in which you are interested? Why not show your confidence in the Committee whose judgment you have been relying on in your arguments to-night, and let the issue between us be decided in the usual procedure which this House allows?
There is a general recognition that there are some places where changing conditions, growth of population, outspread of industries and dwellings necessitate extensions of the boundaries of boroughs. It is admitted by the Mover of the Amendment that that is the case, and it undoubtedly is so, and therefore Parliament laid down the procedure to follow. It used to be to come to Parliament and to stand the expense of two inquiries through a Committee of this House and a Committee of the other place. That was unnecessarily expensive, and in the Act of 1888 Parliament for the first time directed that where such an application came to the Local Government Board that Board should appoint a suitable officer to hold an inquiry in the locality, to give to all opponents an opportunity of stating their case and expressing their views, and that is the course that has been taken in this case. The application was made to the Ministry of Health. One of its most experienced officers was sent down. For ten days he held this inquiry at Leeds and for nine days he held it at Bradford. He then gave a full report of what he recommended should be done. That report did not give cither to Leeds or to Bradford the full extent of the area they asked for, but it gave them what in the judgment of that officer was justified by the grounds upon which Leeds and Bradford based their claim, and those grounds were efficiency of administration and economy of administration for the two boroughs and the other authorities proposed to be included. Now the matter is brought before us, and Parliament reserves to itself the final decision. It is realised by our opponents that, if they can defeat the Bill in this House, their opposition is thoroughly successful and the matter is closed, once and for all. That is their avowed object, and I ask the House whether a purpose of that sort should be attained in such
a way. This House has itself, years ago, set up a tribunal capable of inquiring into all the details. Many assertions have been made by one or other of my hon. Friends. For instance, the Mover of the Amendment said that the object of the proposals was the aggrandisement of the two strong boroughs at the expense of their weaker neighbours. My answer to that is, that unless the promoters can prove to the satisfaction of the Committee and this House that their proposals have substance in them, beneficial not to themselves only or to the other authorities only, but beneficial in the public interests, they must stand or fall by the result of such an inquiry. It was said, further, that these proposals cannot be said to be necessary. Is not a Committee of this House the most efficient means that exists to test that question? It was further said that bribes are offered by way of differential rating, to induce the outside places to consent to come in. That is a total misapprehension of the position. It is quite true that differential rating is offered to places to be brought within the boroughs, as is usual, because it must take a period of time, longer or shorter, before a place brought in can begin to receive the full advantage of their connection. You cannot provide a new sewage works, you cannot extend your waterworks, and you cannot give all the other facilities, immediately this House passes a Bill of incorporation.
The effect of an Amendment of this sort, which is proposed by the opponents of the Bill, will be, if it is successful, to deprive these boroughs of the right of access to courts set up by Parliament, where all these things we state and deny across the Floor of the House can be investigated and challenged. Statements have been made by the seconder of the Amendment to which I take strong exception, and which, if he were before a Committee of this House, liable to examination and cross-examination, he could not find the means of substantiating. They were made in all good faith, and under the enthusiastic earnestness with which he has taken up the case of those he so ably represents. The object of the existence of these Committees is to give the opportunity of testing all these questions, and the opponents have as full an opportunity as the promoters of putting their views and stating their
case and asking the Committee to take care of their interests. There are places connected with both Bradford and Leeds, which are outgrowths of their boroughs, which are wishful to come into them. Clayton, Baildon and Esholt are wishful to come into Bradford. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Adel is anxious to come into Leeds.

Mr. BARRAND: No, no.

Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes. There is also part of the urban district of Roth-well which desires to go into Leeds.

Mr. LUNN: No.

Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: I understand that part of the Urban District of Roth-well has expressed its willingness to come in. Subsequent to the inquiry, and upon learning the full facts of the case, a poll was taken of the inhabitants there, and 800 voted in favour of going into Leeds and only 100 against.

Mr. BARRAND: The hon. Member said that Adel, part of my constituency, is anxious to go into Leeds. I have received a communication signed by the whole of the Parish Council of Adel, saying that there is no one in that parish who is in favour of going into Leeds, but that a meeting was held in the parish by people who came from Leeds, and they passed a resolution in favour of Leeds.

Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: That is another illustration of the need for sending this Bill to a tribunal of this House. My hon. Friend has stated, with full sincerity, that the district in question has taken an adverse attitude to this Bill, but I am speaking for the part of Adel which it is proposed to incorporate, and he is speaking for the parish council of the whole area, which is not included in this proposal. I am referring only to that part which is proposed to be included, and it has expressed its willingness to come in. The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent that being carried out. If the Bill goes to a Committee, they can reject anything that shows justification for its rejection, and they can include that which shows justification for its inclusion. This House does not possess that power of selection. It must destroy the good as well as the bad. For that reason the House has set up a tribunal that can investigate these cases.
There are two main reasons given for the opposition. One is the expense that will be incurred. I am in favour of everything that has been said in regard to the necessity for economy in Imperial and local affairs, but my hon. Friends have either not realised the position or they have not stated the exact facts. I am going to make an assertion which I am sure will startle them and will bring an immediate contradiction, but I am not making it without a great sense of responsibility. That assertion is this: that before the time that any Committee sits to investigate this Bill, from 75 to 80 per cent, of the total expense to be incurred up to any Committee proceeding will have actually been spent. It has mostly been spent now. I will give my justification for that statement. I base it first upon my own experience, which is not small. I made the statement privately to one or two of my opponents, and they at once expressed their doubt about the truth of it. I therefore took the care to ask one of the leading Parliamentary agents, who is more conversant than any other with these proceedings, and also our own Town Clerk, who is very experienced in the matter, if they would give me their own calculations, independent of my own. One gave 75 per cent., the other 80 per cent., and thought it might be a little more

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: The hon. Gentleman says that 75 per cent. of the total expenditure would be incurred if the Bill had its Second Beading before it actually went into Committee. Will be tell the House what proportion of the 75 per cent, would be saved if the Bill did not get its Second Reading to-night?

Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: None of it.

Sir R. ADKINS: Oh, yes!

Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: No! What I put to the House is this, and I do it with great confidence: that of the total expense from the inception of these schemes up to the close of the Committee stage, of the total expense between those two points, 75 per cent, at least, more probably 80 per cent., has already been incurred. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Yes! I stand by that statement definitely, and may I say to hon. Gentlemen who are not so conversant with the working of these things that when you reach the Committee stage the whole of your prepara-
tions are made, the ground has been investigated, the scheme prepared and the plans prepared, the experts have been retained, the evidence taken, the briefs all prepared. In this particular case of which I am speaking the local inquiry has been held with the opponents and all the witnesses and everyone else, and I feel sure I am putting a very moderate estimate when I say that before the Committee stage commences—to-night, I might say—75 per cent. of the expenses that will be incurred up to the end have already been incurred and cannot be saved. Let me give another test as to whether my opponents are thoroughly sincere on the question of expense, or whether they desire to use it as another argument to destroy the opportunity of this Bill going to a Committee. There are two methods by which questions of this sort can be dealt with in Parliament. We in this House may give a Bill a Second Reading, and send it to a Committee of this House. Another method is that the two Houses may unite in one Joint Committee to investigate any question, and each House accept the Report of that Joint Committee. The former case is, naturally, more expensive because you have a double hearing; the latter case is economical as compared with the former because one hearing covers the whole. My friends have been offered, and we, the supporters, are prepared to accept, a Joint Committee of both Houses in order to minimise the expense, but I take it that some of my opponents at all events are sportsmen, and like sensible sportsmen they prefer a gun with a double-barrel so that if the first shot does not achieve its object they have a second. They omit to note, however, that that double chance means a double expense, and therefore they should not put forward the plea of economy and at the same time decline that offer.
A word has been said about local opinion. I attach as much importance to local opinion as those opposing the Bill do. It is one of the main elements in considering questions of this sort, but it is not the only element. I have urged it in seeking to defeat my own city on one section of their first proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear!"] But it is not the only argument. Where the area in all its component parts or largely is distinctly a part of the greater
authority it is natural for ratepayers if they can be there at a lower expense for their rates to say they prefer to stay outside. In regard to Leeds, the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox), said that some time ago Leeds had an extension. That is quite correct. The reason was this: Leeds, many years ago, bought one of the largest parks in the country, outside Leeds. It developed that park, provided tramway access, and all other accessories. The natural thing was that on the outskirts of that park grew up a large community consisting entirely of Leeds people attracted out there by the provision Leeds had made and the services Leeds had rendered, but who paid much lower rates than Leeds itself did. Surely, no one would suggest that those inhabitants should overrule all considerations of inclusion because of the uses they were making of the amenities and services the city had provided.

Mr. LANE-FOX: They are not included in this.

Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: No.

Mr. BARRAND: Did they object to being included?

Sir W. MIDDLEBROOK: I am using that simply as an illustration of a case where the objection, even if unanimous, should not be the overruling consideration of all others. There is one other consideration, and I think it is upon this that these boroughs will have to rest for their success or otherwise. It is that you must show that both for the promoter of a scheme and for those of the inhabitants who do not wish to come in there will be an overwhelming public interest in the improvement of the health and of all health services, in the efficiency of administration, and in the economy with which administration can be carried out. If those were proved, I should be prepared, even against the wish of the majority of the inhabitants, to say they should come in. I want to urge on the House the importance of maintaining its old procedure with regard to this question. For 13 years in succession this House has honoured me with the appointment to a Committee that has to deal entirely with Bills for municipal government, and that Committee has further honoured me by appointing me as Chairman for 10 years in succession. I only
mention that to show that it has brought me into direct association with municipalities throughout the whole of the country. Many a time, as has been referred to to-day, we have to refuse either a muncipality or an opponent something they are urging in these Committees, and I have noticed with appreciation—I am not referring to this Committee only, but to all the Private Bill Committees of the House—that not infrequently representatives of great authorities in this country who have been here with their Private Bills and have been defeated in obtaining the objects they wished to obtain have said: "We are disappointed in what we wanted to get, but we are satisfied we have had a full, a fair, and a free opportunity of putting the whole of our case and circumstances." After all, the local government work of this country—county, borough, urban, and rural—is one of the main elements in the management of our country. We here legislate, they administer; and they come into very close touch with the lives of the people of this country. Consequently, to retain their confidence in the impartiality and fairness of this House and its willingness to give them access with any proposals they have to make, to consider those proposals and grant or refuse them on the merits that can be alleged with regard to them, is one very important thing for this House to maintain. From that point of view infinitely more than from any other—because I am not wedded to every detail of these two schemes; there are differences of degree in regard to them, I agree—I urge on the House that it should give what is an almost absolute right, namely, the access of these authorities to the tribunal which the House itself has created for investigation.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I desire to support the remarks of my right hon. Friend, the Member for South Leeds (Sir W. Middlebrook) in regard to this Bill. I have been at a loss to understand the deliberate opposition to this Measure. The constitutional history of this House, although I am but a new Member, has led me to believe that under circumstances that have arisen, and will always arise, when there is no new principle involved in the Second Reading of a Bill, and when the principle that is involved in the Second Reading of a Bill has been
endorsed by Parliament, by ages and years of experience, it goes through, and subsequently the merits and details of the Bill are considered in Committee upstairs. Here, under extraordinary and very unique circumstances, the Second Reading of what practically amounts to a Local Legislation Bill [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—at any rate, the principle of it has been endorsed by Parliament, in 1888—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]— yes, in the Local Government Act of 1888—is now opposed. The hon. Member for South Leeds has been a member of the Local Legislation Committee for longer years than I have, but ever since I came into this House I have been upon it. I have sat for three days of each Parliamentary week. The majority of the Bills which come before us deal with the extension of boroughs and, as the hon. Member for Pudsey and Otley (Mr. Barrand) knows, we have been dealing for the last three weeks with a Bill which was never challenged in this House on Second Reading, but was passed to the Committee upstairs for consideration on its merits. Yet today, because Leeds is a big city, because Bradford is a big city, and because the West Riding County Council, of which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) and myself were members for a good many years, is a big County Council, it is opposed.

Mr. LANE-FOX: No.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Yes, and it is to be opposed on the merits of the situation, but the principles of the Bill are not to be considered at all. It is to be opposed, what for? I am in the position of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in this matter, because I have been on the West Riding County Council for a good many years, and I have equally been interested in boroughs. I know the position, perhaps a little more intimately than do some hon. Members in this House. These people are neither more virtuous nor more vicious than the rest of mankind, but they have very considerable ideas as regards their own potentialities and responsibilities, and they have a good deal of consideration or less consideration for the potentialities and responsibilities of those who might be potential opponents. Is not that a fact? It is human nature. The West Riding County Council is the author and forefront of the opposition. [HON.
MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, it is. It is the County Council's Association against the Association of Municipal Corporations.

Lieut.-Colonel WILLEY: Plus the ratepayers.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My brother Member for Bradford (Lieut.-Colonel Willey) talks of the ratepayers. He is the last person who ever considered them. I do not know what he means by referring to the ratepayers. Really this is a fight between two associations in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] On principle. It is a fight between the County Council's Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations.

Mr. BARRAND: Nothing of the sort.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: On principle, based upon the necessary result of past legislation, where, under the Act of 1888 Parliament endowed boroughs with certain powers, and invited them to ask for more. It then said, "If you will ask for more, we will consider it," under what was the Local Government Board administration and under what is now the Ministry of Health. There it is; that is a new development. Those powers are there. What happens to-day? These boroughs, under the Act of 1888, are entitled to ask for those powers. If they get them, a Provisional Order is issued. To-day the opposition to this Measure is based, not upon any question of, shall I say, contravention of or disgust with the Act of 1888. It is based on the question of expense. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, principle and expense. There is no objection in that at all, for this reason, that whatever Parliament in its wisdom may do hereafter as regards revision of Local Government Acts, those who are opposing this Bill to-day ought to remember and to recognise the fact that Parliament, in its wisdom or unwisdom, in 1913, stated that wherever a borough got powers to extend its boundaries compensation should be given to the local authorities outside the borough extension for the deprivation they had suffered in the value of rateable payment. We know that that is true to-day. The West Riding County Council, by reason of the extensions of the boroughs in the West Riding of Yorkshire, has received payment by means of compensation.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that they have been anything like compensated for the loss sustained?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: My hon. Friend is still on the West Riding County Council, of which I have no longer the honour to be a member. He has received—I speak with regard to his County Council interests and, of course, not personally—£221,000. I do not know what the County Council have done with it. When it is suggested that the extension of our borough and city boundaries may adversely affect these areas, I would venture to point out for his remembrance, and for the remembrance of the West Riding County Council, that apart from the financial payments that the West Riding County Council have received, the rateable value of those areas still outside the boroughs in Yorkshire has increased by £2,000,000. That has been the ground of the opposition to the extension of our boundaries, namely, that we were depriving the other areas outside of their rateable value and financial resources. With regard to any injustice that may have been created, as has been frequently represented, and has been represented to-night, there has been no such thing, for now the rateable value of these areas has actually increased.
The whole thing boils itself down to this, whether it is a matter of practical politics, or a matter which should be considered on its individual merits. I do not care, personally, whether a county council or a borough council governs local matters. Both are probably inefficient and expensive. But the whole question from a House of Commons point of view is, how far can you enable an authority to which you give powers to operate, from the point of view of a consideration of the merits of the case, and how far you have equally eliminated further expense. If the merits of the case are right—and you cannot gauge the efficiency or inefficiency of a local authority in the future, as we know from experience—then I submit that it is unjustifiable to say that the House of Commons upon this Bill, which is based upon Acts of Parliament, tradition and habits, should refuse to the local authorities promoting the Bill the right to consideration by a Committee upstairs, which which would eliminate what they consider
to be wrong and keep only what they consider to be right. It is wrong from a constitutional point of view to refuse a Second Reading of this Bill. No new principle is involved. The hon. Member for South Leeds (Sir W. Middlebrook) referred rather shortly to a Bill which had been upstairs, and had been dealt with by a Committee of which he and I and the hon. Member for Otley (Mr. Barrand) were Members. The hon. Member for Otley opposes the Second Reading of this Bill. Does he really consider, after what was done by the Committee of which we were Members, that because a Second Reading is given to a Bill there will not be adequate and due consideration given to the details of any Bills promoted elsewhere? The Bill upon which we have been working for some weeks now dealt with borough extension for the city of Swansea, a limited borough which——

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: It cost us £50,000.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I daresay; that is your fault. It is hard to avoid expense nowadays. Nobody can. Apart from that these great boroughs are out for extension. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) says that we must reject this Bill on Second Reading. What did we do, as a very small insignificant Local Legislation Committee of this House, quite unimportant, comparatively reasonable and thoroughly honest—nobody is honest in the House of Commons to-day, or at least the public outside say so—but honest according to our convictions? We turned down the application of the Corporation of Swansea for their borough extension. Is it right to say, with that example and scores of other examples before us, that when we judge these matters, as we do honestly, irrespective of political prejudice and purely on the merits, you should to-day reject a Bill of which the vast majority of the House of Commons cannot know the merits? It is no discredit to them not to know the merits. Every honest Member knows that there are scores of subjects which come up, and if you are a Member of the Committee which deals with those subjects you become au fait with them while the rest of the House of Commons do not, and have no knowledge of the details——

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: We understand the price which we pay for them.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: And you may understand the principles and act against them. The main fact is that we know these questions have got to be judged on the merits. The only way we can arrived at an appreciation of the merits is, after the principle is endorsed by a Second Reading in the House of Commons, that a Committee appointed by this House should then without prejudice consider the matter and come to a decision, according to what they think is fair to the localities concerned and how far Parliament is justified in giving the powers asked for. I have no particular interest in the extension of Bradford or in the elmination of other portions of the West Riding from the county council area and having them thrown into the areas of Leeds or Bradford. It is a question of Parliamentary procedure and statutory right. So far as Parliament gives power to local bodies and ordinary citizens recognise Parliamentary institutions, it would be a mistake for Parliament not to act upon them. Otherwise you reduce yourself to the position of a Bolshevist or an anarchist, because you refuse to recognise the wise, deliberate, considered opinion, not of the Parliament of to-day, but of wiser Parliaments of the past. The House of Commons would be wrong to reject the Second Reading of a Bill which does not involve a new principle but endorses an old one, and to refuse to allow a Committee of the House of Commons, set up for the purpose, to consider all the different details of the Bill. If you do so, it will be a prejudice to the extension of good local government of this country.
When the cry of exepnse is raised it is ridiculous. The expense is incurred long before the Second Reading of the Bill is brought before the House. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash made a plea ad misericordiam, "Do not involve us in further expense." I say it is their responsibility. I am asked, Why should they incur it? If they are so convinced of the rectitude of their own position, naturally they must incur it, but if they would only take a common-sense point of view and grasp the fact that there really is not any hostility towards the local government of county councils and
boroughs, they would merely be facing the true position. It is ridiculous to say that Parliament must come in with a new Royal Commission before we can decide these matters. A Royal Commission to effect a revolution in local government acts would take years, and I do not suppose that this Parliament, or any other, would have time to deal with it. Even if it were so, that would be merely delaying what is justified and is needed, and is literally demanded on the basis of past local legislation. We ask that the House shall give a Second Reading to this Bill, not that all the details are necessarily correct, but in order that the matter might be thoroughly investigated upstairs and the question decided on its merits.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): It is right that I should say a few words on the position in which we are placed by the action of the hon. Members who have moved the rejection of this Bill. It is an unusual procedure and almost unprecedented, I believe, to move the rejection of a Provisional Order Bill on the Floor of this House on Second Reading. The discussion which has taken place has been sufficient to prove the unwisdom of asking the House to decide a question full of controversy, full of contradiction, and full of detail, with all the problems affecting borough extensions and the relations of local authorities to each other. Hon. Members have pointed out, I think with unanswerable force, that the House of Commons in the Act of 1888 laid down a procedure, for good or evil, which it is our usual practice to follow. It was under this procedure that the Ministry over which I preside, on the application of those concerned, sent one of its own experienced officers to hold a local inquiry. The object of that local inquiry was to find out whether a primâ facie case could be established for extension of the borough. As a matter of fact, that is one of the endeavours made in order to save the expense of which we have heard so much to-night. I am afraid that the endeavour has not proved successful. Why? Largely because the opponents of the Bill consistently refused to accept the findings of the impartial person who conducted the inquiry. Therefore the argument of expense is not a very pertinent one or one which should sway us now.
10.0 P.M.
Not merely was an inquiry held, but after the inquiry the opponents of this Measure were specially invited to come to an amicable settlement in conference. That conference was refused, and they also refused a further endeavour at settlement which was made in connection with the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses. Those who refuse every endeavour to arrive at every kind of settlement, and ask the House of Commons to throw out the Bill on Second Reading, are not the right parties to put expense in the forefront of their programme. I do not think they can ask Members of this House to depart from the usual procedure on Bills of this kind simply on the ground of expense. I listened very carefully to the speech of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. I expected to hear from them some exceptional reasons why the Bill should be thrown out instead of proceeding in the usual way to a Committee upstairs. I cannot say that in the two speeches I heard a single argument which influenced me in favour of the course they proposed. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are already committed!"] I am only committed in a Ministerial capacity.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt. Some hon. Members promised to speak for 15 minutes, but spoke for 25 minutes, largely because of the interruptions of their opponents.

Sir A. MOND: I have no interest in the extension of Leeds or Bradford, nor have I any interest in their disputes. I was bound to hold an inquiry. The inspector made a report, I carefully examined it to the best of my ability, and I came to the conclusion that there was a primâ facie case for extension to go to a Committee of this House, subject to reservations which on reflection we made. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill made the extraordinary statement that there was no reason at all for this Bill, except the ambition of the two corporations. But that is not the case. If it had been the case, the inspector who made the inquiry would have reported that there was no primâ facie case, and the Department would not have brought in this Bill. This is not the opportunity to go into matters of detail, but there are very serious reasons on the ground of public health, on the ground of economy, and
on the ground of housing to induce the corporations of these two very large industrial areas to apply for an extension of their boundaries I say that without committing either myself or the House in any way.
As to the question of whether the extension should be made, I say emphatically it is not correct to say that no reason of any kind, value or importance can be adduced in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. It is obvious the Bill could not have stood the criticism of a local inquiry, or the criticism of experienced officers of my Department, if the case had been as the Mover and Seconder of the rejection have tried to make out. You must either adopt the argument that no borough council on any ground is entitled to any extension whatever, or you must argue the details to ascertain whether the extension that is asked for is to be given. The hon. Member who moved the rejection has not given a single reason why any part of the extension should be rejected. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the wishes of the people?"] I am coming to that. The question of the opposition of the surrounding local authorities has often been debated in this House, and it was debated three times in this House at very great length in 1920 on the Edinburgh and Leith case. Edinburgh wished an extension, and Leith opposed violently. The case went up to a Committee, and it was recommitted to the House. After three Debates, this House laid down a principle which, I think, is the guiding principle in this matter, and that is, that although, undoubtedly, the wishes of the inhabitants of the surrounding districts must always form a very important factor in the consideration of any claim for extension, it cannot be, and never has been, accepted as the only and decisive factor. If you once regard it as the only and decisive factor, you come to this conclusion, that a huge area enclosed in a borough could never have any extension on any terms, if the smaller authorities refused. You could never be committed to a conclusion of that kind.
The question of how genuine is the opposition of people around is a question for examination by a Committee upstairs, but to-night we hear hon. Members saying or denying that such and such a parish
council is opposed, and the very fact that these statements are made across the Floor of the House proves that it is, impossible for us to sift these statements on Second Reading. It is the most convincing proof that these are questions for a Committee upstairs, and I would respectfully ask hon. Members not to take what, in my opinion, would be a very serious precedent. The question of the extension of borough boundaries is a very difficult one, but it is also a question which affects to a very large extent the welfare of the industrial population in very large areas. I do not want to go into details on these Bills. There are many questions which arise on this Bill and other Bills, such as large corporations requiring land outside their boundaries, say, for housing purposes. All this kind of question is involved in Bills of this character. They are questions for a Committee upstairs, where they can be dealt with effectively and fairly between all parties, and not questions to be dealt with on the Floor of the House, where we hear eloquent and plausible speeches on both sides—speeches containing, I daresay, some justifiable exaggeration on both sides. Nothing arouses so much interest or so much excitement as these local questions, but the Members of this Chamber, with the best intentions in the world, can scarcely on Second Reading, in a discussion of this length, make up their minds on all the points involved. I can see nothing to separate this Bill, in principle, from all the other extension Bills, which have been going to Committees upstairs, and the House has seen fit in the past to send these Bills upstairs. I would ask the House to treat these Bills in the same way, and not take upon itself the responsibility which really belongs to a body specially created to deal with it.

Mr. LUNN: It would be very difficult to contest the statement that this House is a democratic institution when we realise that we may be discussing questions that affect the furthermost points of the earth one day, and the next day we drop into the parish affairs of some of the local councils, with which some of us have been connected; but it is difficult to understand the position taken up by some Members of this House. For instance, to-night the hon. Member for South Leeds (Sir W. Middlebrook), who is taking the side of Leeds and Bradford
in this Bill, under other circumstances that might have arisen, and were very possible to arise, would have been the bitterest opponent of this Bill. It is only a few weeks since the local inquiry was held, and at the inquiry the borough in which the hon. Member for South Leeds has lived all his life was then included in the scheme of the extension of Leeds, and I know the hon. Member so well that if that borough had been in the Bill to-night he would have made an equally powerful speech against this extension. Some of us are a bit astonished at the arguments used in this Debate regarding economy. Much has been said during the last year or two in this House regarding national economy, and I am one of those who believe that there is equally a necessity to consider the economy of local rates as well as of taxation.
I believe that the Division which will be taken to-night will have far-reaching effects, and if the decision be against this Bill, I am satisfied that it may either save local rates, or that the money may be spent on necessary improvements to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds. That is the position. For nearly two years we have been trying to urge on the Minister of Health the necessity of preventing a Bill like this coming before the House, and preventing the inquiry. Week in and week out we have tried the Coué method on the Minister of Health without avail. We are told to-night in this Debate that practically the whole of the expense has been incurred in connection with it. A more ridiculous statement could not be made than that. As a matter of fact, the Gallery is full of local councillors who will be transferred, if this Bill gets a Second Beading, along with experts, engineers, accountants, and a regiment of counsel, into the Committee Booms upstairs in order to carry on the agitation for weeks and weeks longer, and although these schemes have now cost probably about £150,000, I can see a possible cost of far more than double that amount before the Bill is passed by the two Houses of Parliament. Not only will it have an effect upon this particular Bill, but a decision of this House will have an effect upon other extension schemes also, and after all, is it not an important matter that in local government there has been practically a standstill during the War? Nothing has been done to cope with the necessary require-
ments in the localities, and would it not have been better for the Minister to have met us and appointed a Commission to consider the extension of borough boundaries in the country, as he has done with regard to the County of London, and so tided us over these hard times, when money is so scarce and when every penny ought to be spent upon useful work and not squandered in the way that it is being squandered in connection with Bills of this description? I feel that the question of economy at this moment is a most important one. I know the areas concerned in this Bill at least equally with any hon. Member of this House, and I know that the whole of the officials of these local authorities at this moment are, for the last two years have been, and for the next 12 months will be, engaged on nothing else but preparing and fighting the case in connection with this Bill. I urge upon the House the necessity that we should defeat it in the interests of economy for the many local councils who are affected.
I am satisfied that Bradford are not very much in this Bill; they are in this business in order to save their own skins. Leeds are the culprits with regard to this Bill. I remember the day, not very long ago, when Leeds was considered the largest city in Yorkshire, but a few years ago Sheffield outclassed them and became the largest city in population. The very distinguished alderman of the city of Leeds, who has been referred to, who rules the city, who moulds his party like bits of putty—and the other parties are very little better—sees Sheffield in this position, and it is his desire, his determination, at whatever cost, that Leeds must replace Sheffield from that proud position which they occupy at this moment, and it is only this week-end that I have seen an article in a Leeds newspaper from which it appears that in a very short time not only is this Bill to be passed, but Bradford and Ilkley and many other places will be parts of the city of Leeds.
I do not say that position is unjustifiable. There may be a case for it, but if there is a case for extending borough boundaries, then it is for the House to deal with it as it affects the country as a whole, and not in small cases such as that which is before the House at the moment. It is more in the interests of economy than anything else, that I feel
we ought to defeat this Bill and urge the Minister to take up the matter in a national way. What about the outside areas concerned? The hon. Member for Bradford (Major Boyd-Carpenter) seemed to ignore the opinions of the people who are to be brought into these cities. I gave evidence before the inquiry, and presented a petition from a very large urban area, which was to be included within the city of Leeds and where 93 per cent. of the people voted against inclusion. That was a plebiscite taken in an honourable and honest manner. To-night we have had a decision in regard to the same area quoted by the hon. Member for South Leeds (Sir W. Middlebrook). Another plebiscite has been taken, of which some of us never heard the particulars before. I wish to say that this plebiscite was most irregular and there can be no guarantee as to its accuracy. Since it was taken, there have been, in this particular area, two local elections and not one candidate could be found to stand for inclusion. All the candidates have been in favour of remaining outside the city.
Regarding the question of public advantage, I say there is no question of public advantage in including these districts in the city of Leeds. They are absolutely independent and self-contained. They have their own sewerage schemes and they drain away from the city. The people who live in these districts are miners and railwaymen, and neither coalpits nor coal measures come over the city boundary. They are not runaway ratepayers in any sense of the word, because most of them never lived within the city of Leeds. Why should they wish to go into a city like Leeds? Leeds is the city of back-to-back houses. It has more of them than any other city in the country. Leeds is the city where people pay more rent to live on the sunny side of the street than to live on the shady side. I have visited schools in Leeds where there are children inches shorter in height and pounds less in weight than the children in some other schools which I have visited in the same city. If Leeds wishes to spend its money in a useful way why does it not tackle its roads? There are some of its roads which it would take an expert trick cyclist to ride upon and only on Sunday night, a very capable cyclist told me that
he very rarely rides one one of the main arteries into that city without losing the chain from his bicycle. I feel that we have no need to wish to go into a city like that and that with the government we have outside, we are in a much better position than we should be within the city. There is a serious aspect of this matter apart from the present Bill. The inspector has reported to the Ministry and the Ministry has introduced a Bill which has cut up some districts and inquiry has never been made into the effect upon those districts of the cutting-up process. As a matter of fact this Bill gives the richest part of my own area to the city without any consideration as to the effect of this on the remaining part. That is a serious matter. If this Bill should be carried it will mean that we will have very seriously to consider whether or not, seeing that Leeds will have got the plum, we should not give the rest to them! That is the sort of thing that comes in a Bill of this description.
For 28 years I have been very much wrapped up in the local government of these districts, and I am much concerned in this matter. I have been before in the fights against the extension of this city, and we have defeated the city. There is much in local government which a Bill like this will wipe out. We are not all rich men. Some of us have to get up, or had to get up, very early in the morning and go to our work. Our only hobby has been participation in local government. We have given our time to it. We have been interested in it, and a Bill like this will, if passed, absolutely wipe out the possibility of working men taking part in the local government of their neighbourhood. How could I, as a miner, have attended meetings of the Leeds City Council at 11 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the afternoon? I could not have done so, and I would never have had the training I got—and other men are getting similar training to-day—in local government in one of the areas that are mentioned in this Bill, and which Leeds and Bradford are seeking to include within their boundaries. Every one of these areas, is bitterly opposed to this projected extension because of love of the district and the local government of it in which they are wrapped up. We take an interest in the local elections equally
with Leeds. I know Leeds, because for the past 25 years I have been on the platform at every local election in Leeds. I have never heard, either on the platform nor at any of the elections in the past, anything with regard to a desire of the ratepayers of Leeds to extend the boundaries of the city. The people have never been consulted.
I ask the House on this occasion, because of the interest I feel in economy, when we have the opportunity of exercising it, to give a vote, and to say that these areas who do not wish to spend money—which they will be compelled to do if this Bill gets its Second Reading— shall have the power to do as they wish. If there are those who wish to spend the rates let them spend them at the present time on the useful public work which is necessary in view of what we have experienced during the last seven years of neglect of public work. It is my earnest desire, and the earnest desire of 90 per cent. of the people living on the outside areas of Leeds and Bradford, that this Bill should not be given a Second Beading. I hope we will carry the Amendment so that the Minister may take up the whole question of the extension of boundaries, not only as regards Leeds and Bradford, but the nation as a whole, so that the extension of boundaries, whenever necessary, may be dealt with on a proper basis. I am not opposed to the national extension of borough boundaries—not for a moment! I believe there is much justification to be put forward in many cases, but I say it is for the Minister to take up the matter nationally and for us to defeat this Bill.

Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I desire, in the five minutes to which I am glad to limit myself, to speak on this issue with the fullest sense of responsibility with which I have ever ventured to speak in this House during the 15 years I have sat here. We have been told by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health we are to send this Bill upstairs because it had become an almost universal custom. He talked about the Act of 1888. What does my right hon. Friend know about the Act of 1888? When that became law he was happily and usefully employed in investigating the relations between chemistry and wealth. It is only in the last few months, when he has had a deserved passage from private prosperity
to public eminence, that he has been the mouthpiece of the Ministry of Health. To-night he is merely the mouthpiece of that Department, which in this matter is still, alas, in the toils of an evil and obsolete tradition. They fancy that even to-day it is as it was before 1888, when, outside municipal boroughs, there was little or no intensive local government; and it was fair and right to extend municipal boroughs in order that people who had little self-government might share a more highly-developed system. Since 1888 there have been developments throughout the country. To-day outside great county boroughs there is an alternative method of local government by county, urban and rural district and parish council, and although these do not claim to be better than county boroughs they claim equal status and equal consideration. When that is the case, the determining factor should be, not the outworn traditions of a Government Department, but the wishes of the people concerned.
We are told that we must send something upstairs. The very Act of 1888 provided that there should be an opportunity of this House deciding these matters on a Second Reading, and I decline to be a party to handing over the liberties and privileges of this House, either to a department on the one side or a Committee on the other side. I am speaking on behalf of the County Councils Association of England and Wales, the Urban Districts Association of England and Wales, and the Rural Districts Association of England and Wales, and all these bodies are united in opposing a Bill which adds to great cities which are already large enough to practice the higher forms of local government and to exhaust the energies and ambitions of the most brilliant citizens without increasing their boundaries, and which now seek against the will of the inhabitants to annex large districts that are contentedly and prosperously administered by the local authorities.
We are divided in ordinary times by principles which have upon them the label Conservative, Liberal and Labour. I hope every one of us has something of each three in his composition. As Conservatives, are we going to destroy the great historic unity of English counties. As Liberals, are we going to deprive our fellow-citizens of the varied opportunities of self-government close to
their homes, which would be weakened if they were merely items of gigantic entities. As Labour—including, not only hon. Members on those Benches, but the great number of us who have to work for our living day by day—are we not anxious to be allowed to have such local institutions that, while we are working day by day for our living, we may have some little time to take part in the local government of the neighbourhood in which we live and of the places we love? On these grounds I ask the House most earnestly to reject this Bill, which has no basis in the opinion of those most concerned, which is not needed for the efficiency of the two great cities whose acquisitiveness is so conspicuous, and which cannot be granted without implying, if not asserting, that a great fabric of local government in the West Biding of Yorkshire is open and ready for mutilation at the hands of those who seek it.
As regards the question of expense, as one who in his time has had a little practice at the Parliamentary Bar, I assure the House, with regard to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds, whose transparent personal sincerity is in such contrast to the imperfect instructions that he has received—I assure the House that, if expenses have been incurred, if briefs have been delivered, if large fees have been promisd to counsel and expert witnesses in this case before the House of Commons has decided on the Second Reading, those are extravagant and improper commitments. If, on the other hand, they have not been so incurred, I assure the House that a very large expenditure will be saved if it will only, in this hour of compulsory economy, for the sake both of the nation and of its inhabitants, protect the people most interested from having to spend thousands more in protecting the autonomy of their neighbourhood and the self-government of their homes.

Mr. RATCLIFFE: I think the House will be willing to hear a few words from the inside in opposition to this Bill. I feel that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Bradford (Lieut.-Colonel Willey) and myself have the right to speak on behalf of the ratepayers of Bradford, who have never had an oppor-
tunity of making their wishes known in connection with this proposal, although it is fraught with such tremendous consequences. We, as natives of Bradford, who have lived in Bradford all our lives, and who feel at any rate that we are in a position to form something like a sound judgment on the matter, are personally against this Bill, and we are trying for all we are worth to articulate the wishes of the ratepayers of Bradford and of our constituents. I want to say candidly to the House that on no single occasion have the ratepayers had any opportunity of voting or being consulted on these proposals. We have had two municipal elections—and there are altogether 21 wards in the City of Bradford—and at neither of those municipal elections, either in November, 1920, or in November, 1921, was it ever mentioned on a single election platform. On these grounds, in the first instance, I feel it to be my duty to offer the most uncompromising opposition to the Bill and to express the hope that the House will reject it. There are, however, other grounds. As a plain sort of everyday man, I think that, before people try to extend their businesses to so large an extent, they should show their ability to manage those businesses which they have. There is no necessity on geographical grounds for this Bill. Bradford has thousands of acres at present unbuilt upon, so that, although the Minister of Health has mentioned the housing question, it does not affect it one iota. Also in the Census in 1921 we were between two and three thousand less population than we were in 1911, so that there is not very much to be said for Bradford being crowded out.
I want to deal with this matter largely on financial grounds. I am sorry to say it, but I know of no city, unless it be Poplar, where the finances have been so badly handled during the last two or three years as they have been in Bradford. The figures I will give you are from their own official reports. In the three years ending March 31st, 1922, they overspent their estimates—we know what Supplementary Estimates are—to the tune of £552,578. Yet they are supposed to be making the most careful estimates they can at the beginning of each year. That necessitates very nearly 7s. in the £ on the rateable value of the city. A petition was forwarded to the Minister in the
later part of 1920 and an inquiry was held early in 1921. It was stated at the inquiry by the head financial official of the Bradford Corporation that the rates—16s. 10d. in the £—had then reached the maximum. That was certainly cheering as far as it went, but that was within a month of the end of the financial year, and when the new rate was laid there had been a re-valuation and a re-assessment, and the re-assessment raised the assessment by £536,000, estimated to produce £418,000 additional. The rate was reduced on account of the increased assessment, but the aggregate was not lowered, and it meant that if the same amount of money had been raised on the assessment that was in operation when the inquiry was held, the rates, instead of remaining at 16s. 10d., would have, been between 24s. and 25s. in the £. Of the four largest towns in the West Riding—this appeared recently in the "Yorkshire Observer"— the lowest was £4 13s. 2d. and the highest £6 17s. 7d., or £2 4s. 5d. above the lowest, per head of the population, man, woman, and child. There is another point that affects the taxpayer. The gross expenditure in Bradford in 1901, when the last extension came into operation was £492,378, of which the Government paid £65,000. In 1920–21 it had grown to £2,247,133, of which the Government had to pay £476,603. The ex-Lord Mayor of Bradford stated a few days ago that the cost of education from 1914 to 1922 had risen from £309,000 to £760,000, although there were 4,000 fewer scholars in the schools.
My chief contention is that until Bradford people want an extension, until Bradford can keep its own house in much better order than it is at the present time, and can manage its finances in a more economical way, there is no justification for handing over to them any outside authority who can manage their own local affairs better than Bradford can manage its own or can manage theirs for them.

Captain LOSEBY: May I remind the House that we are discussing a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders dealing with the extension of Leeds and Bradford. We have heard many brilliant speeches, but we have heard practically nothing about the particular point dealt with by this Bill. I ask the House whether this Debate has not shown the wisdom of our
Private Bill procedure. I challenge hon. Members with this statement, that after having reached the conclusion of this Debate there is not one out of 20 capable of giving an opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself," and "Withdraw!"]—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have only a short time, and I must ask hon. Members to allow the hon. Member to proceed.

Captain LOSEBY: If hon. Members had heard the conclusion of my sentence they would not have objected. I was saying that not one out of 20 is capable of giving an opinion now upon the details of this Bill. Do hon. Members seriously contend that it is possible within two and three-quarter hours, as against the whole practice of this House for the past 30 years, to decide upon the details of a Bill which would take, perhaps, 30 or 40 days to hear witnesses? In regard to this Bill there was an inquiry extending over 21 days. Is this House seriously, as a matter of practice, going to accept or reject Private Bills upon two and three-quarters hours' hearing? No. If you are going to carry this to its logical conclusion and to treat other Bills upon the same principle the Act of 1888 is going to be absolutely unworkable. Private Bill procedure would, firstly, be dislocated, and, secondly, superseded. It must be, and the time of the House would either be exclusively occupied by details of vital importance to separate localities, or local government would be rendered absolutely impossible. There is not a Member of this House who is seriously going to argue that the course argued by the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill is a practicable Measure. I do urge the House to realise that it would indeed be grossly unfair because hon. Members wish for a general change in legislation to pick out these two particular municipalities without hearing the evidence, except certain speeches, and against the finding of a tribunal which sat over 21 days to reject it without a tittle of evidence, and to say that that finding goes for nought.
I am mainly concerned with answering my hon. Friend and colleague (Mr. Ratcliffe), for whom I have such a deep regard. My hon. Friend suggests that Bradford is not in favour of this particular Bill. How are we to judge whether Bradford is in favour of it or not? I can
only say that I myself and my colleagues have had many resolutions in favour of it, and we have not had one single one from Bradford as against it. I would remind the House, as against my hon. Friend, that this was passed in municipal council unanimously, 73 out of 84 being present, that a resolution was passed unanimously in the city council in 1913, that since then 30 resolutions have been passed by the Parliamentary Committee and have received their place in the Press, and that not one single member, so I am instructed, in Bradford has either moved an amendment or motion or has even spoken against any of these 30 resolutions which have been made public. The most brilliant supporter of the Bradford position has been my hon. Friend himself. In giving evidence in regard to Shipley in the year 1898——

Mr. RATCLIFFE: That is 34 years ago!

Captain LOSEBY: —he suggested that Bradford had better complete its schemes before it embarked on others, and I would like to give his answer to that same question which was put to him when he did not hold the same views as he does to-day.

Mr. RATCLIFFE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that at that time Bradford consisted of 10,000 acres, and that to-day it has 22,000? Is he also aware that the ratepayers had a meeting and approved that scheme?

Captain LOSEBY: My hon. Friend's answer was so much better than any I can give that he must allow me to answer in his own words. Mr. Balfour Browne, cross-examining, asked:
Don't you think, Mr. Ratcliffe, it would have been more prudent, as business men, to consolidate and complete the works you have in hand before going in for this huge extension and increased liabilities?
The hon. Member replied:
I think that the present people in Bradford owe a great deal to the foresight of

those who had the management of Bradford affairs in the past"—

Mr. RATCLIFFE: Hear, hear!

Captain LOSEBY: —" and if they had always pursued a policy of that kind Bradford would simply nave been a village of that kind instead of what it is to-day."

Mr. RATCLIFFE: Hear, hear!

Captain LOSEBY: Answering another question, my hon. Friend said this:
I think it is the best thing for these places that they should be joined to Bradford. I think so. It will tend to do away with the multiplication of officials and there will be one central administration,
and so on, and so on. [HON. MEMBEES: "Divide, divide."] My hon. Friends must have a weak case if they will not hear the other side. There is a point in my hon. Friend's remarks, if he will allow me to say so. He opposes it, I take it, on the ground that it will not be good for Bradford. We have a great deal of evidence on that point. I hope the House will note that Bradford is accused of embarking on this scheme entirely from ideas of aggrandisement and for its our selfish purposes. Yet here my hon. Friend comes forward, and, I take it, his main line of argument is this: "It is all very well to be philanthropic to Shipley, but I believe it is going to cost Bradford too much."
In conclusion, I would remind the House that this is not an original Order. An Order has already been made by an independent tribunal. The House is not asked to confirm or to reveiw that Order It is only asked, in accordance with the ordinary Private Bill procedure, to allow that Order to be taken upstairs to be examined impartially by an impartial tribunal, to see if it is possible to arrive at an impartial decision.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 199.

Division No. 104.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Armitage, Robert
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)


Atkey, A. R.
Davies, A (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Banton, George
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Irving, Dan


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Finney, Samuel
Kennedy, Thomas


Bowerman, Bt. Hon. Charles W.
Foot, Isaac
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Bromfield, William
Gould, James C.
Law, Alfred J, (Rochdale)


Carr, W. Theodore
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hancock, John George
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hayday, Arthur
Matthews, David


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Neal, Arthur
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Spoor, B. G.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Sutton, John Edward



Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Sir D. Middlebrook and Major Boyd-Carpenter.


NOES.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Gillis, William
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Perring, William George


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Pickering, Colonel Emil W.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Grant, James Augustus
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Green, Albert (Derby)
Polson, Sir Thomas A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Rae, H. Norman


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gretton, Colonel John
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsden, G. T.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Grundy, T. W.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Guest, J. (York. W. R., Hemsworth)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Barnston, Major Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Reid, D. D.


Barrand, A. R.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Remer, J. R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Renwick, Sir George


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Halls, Walter
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Hartshorn, Vernon
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Betterton, Henry B.
Henderson, Major V L. (Tradeston)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rose, Frank H.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hills, Major John Waller
Royce, William Stapleton


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hinds, John
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hirst, G. H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Brassey, H. L. C.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Breese, Major Charles E.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Holmes, J. Stanley
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hood, Sir Joseph
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bruton, Sir James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jesson, C.
Spencer, George A.


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Cairns, John
Johnstone, Joseph
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cautley, Henry Strother
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Stewart, Gershom


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Sturrock, J. Long


Coats, Sir Stuart
Kidd, James
Sugden, W. H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kiley, James Daniel
Swan, J. E.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Cope, Major William
Lawson, John James
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Waddington, R,


Davidson, J.C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Lloyd, George Butler
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lorden, John William
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lort-Williams, J.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edgar, Clifford B.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Manville, Edward
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Evans, Ernest
Mason, Robert
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M.(Bethnal Gn.)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Windsor, Viscount


Fildes, Henry
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Morris, Richard
Wise, Frederick


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C
Wolmer, Viscount


Foreman, Sir Henry
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Forrest, Walter
Myers, Thomas
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nield, Sir Herbert
Younger, Sir George


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John



Galbraith, Samuel
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gange, E. Stanley
Parker, James
Mr. Lane-Fox and Mr. Lunn.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham




Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

CLASS II.

BOARD OF TRADE.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £729,545, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including certain Services arising out of the War and Grants-in-Aid.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (15th May).

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.